| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:18:15AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > My above idea of copying /etc/localtime into the chroot during |
| 4 |
> > > chroot_setup and either just removing it or replacing it with a |
| 5 |
> > > file from an optional to-be-added spec file parameter seems like it |
| 6 |
> > > would work - how do people feel about that? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > FWIW, I'd prefer an early-acting root_overlay analog. |
| 9 |
> .. |
| 10 |
> > if we've missed timezones, we're probably missing something else ;) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It's not a bad idea, but OTOH copying /etc/localtime and just |
| 13 |
> removing it again needs no new parameter and would be quite a |
| 14 |
> simple patch. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But then why not just copy over the portage tree too, instead of going |
| 17 |
through the snapshot procedure? I think the point of catalyst is to |
| 18 |
isolate the final tarballs/ISOs from the host system used to build |
| 19 |
them. Otherwise we could skip stages and catalyst, building the |
| 20 |
tarballs in a simple chroot. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 24 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives