| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:38:29AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > It's not a bad idea, but OTOH copying /etc/localtime and just |
| 4 |
> > > removing it again needs no new parameter and would be quite a |
| 5 |
> > > simple patch. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > But then why not just copy over the portage tree too, instead of |
| 8 |
> > going through the snapshot procedure? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> As it happens, I have a patch which implements that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Hmm, that weakens my argument ;). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > I think the point of catalyst is to isolate the final tarballs/ISOs |
| 15 |
> > from the host system used to build them. Otherwise we could skip |
| 16 |
> > stages and catalyst, building the tarballs in a simple chroot. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yes and no. For timezone and resolv.conf that doesn't make sense. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Agreed for resolv.conf, the presense of which always struck me as odd. |
| 21 |
It would be nice if resolv.conf only overrode DNS information that was |
| 22 |
stored in the kernel or something (like /etc/conf.d/hostname). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If the builds are not affected by the particular timezone selected, |
| 25 |
why not just hard-code it to UTC? Folks with their hwclock set to a |
| 26 |
non-UTC timezone might get an artificial offset, but generated |
| 27 |
tarballs are more host-agnostic, and an offset of a few hours seems |
| 28 |
harmless. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Not a big deal either way, though ;). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 34 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives