| 1 |
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 23:04, Paul Varner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:52 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:27 am, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Perhaps |
| 5 |
> > > make.conf.example (that's provided by portage, right?) should include |
| 6 |
> > > CBUILD, assuming it doesn't cause problems? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > i'm afraid the possibility of users botching this makes it not worth the |
| 9 |
> > effort |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > better to keep the definition of CBUILD 'hidden' from most eyes |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> As a user, I had the same thought. Why not have portage set it |
| 14 |
> appropriately unless the user has explicitly defined it? That of course |
| 15 |
> is making the assumption that someone who has explictly set the CBUILD |
| 16 |
> variable knows what they are doing, since they had to go through the |
| 17 |
> trouble of learning about it and the fact that they could set it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Already done about an hour ago. :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives