| 1 |
John Nilsson said: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 23:06, Joseph Booker wrote: |
| 3 |
>> John Nilsson said: |
| 4 |
>> > I feel that we should try to move away from the monolithic nature of |
| 5 |
>> the |
| 6 |
>> > portage tree and try to harness the power of "the web" more. To do |
| 7 |
>> that |
| 8 |
>> > we have to push as much of the package handling as possible upstream. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Many handle it upstream, i can think of perl and oo.o off the top of my |
| 11 |
>> head, but do you want to go through their customizing ways (aka, the |
| 12 |
>> ./configure script) and lose portage's ablity to be run |
| 13 |
>> non-interactivly? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I would be fine with something like the kernels "make oldconfig" each |
| 18 |
> emerge instance. |
| 19 |
> That would be just as "non-interactive" as: |
| 20 |
> emerge -uUD world -pv && vim /etc/make.conf && vim /etc/portage/* && |
| 21 |
> emerge -uUD world. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I am sorry, but I don't understand. Your original post recommended the |
| 24 |
gentoo devs just dump all their work and go back to portage when it was |
| 25 |
much more simplified. Getting rid of all global settings sorta gets rid of |
| 26 |
the use of a make.conf, and if there are no use flags, all the settings is |
| 27 |
pretty much what do you want masked/unmasked in /etc/portage........an |
| 28 |
interesting way of taking a step backwards. Anyways, unless there is some |
| 29 |
central configuration for all of portage that handles everything then |
| 30 |
mentioing `make oldconfig` doens't make sense, neither does your commands |
| 31 |
of updating, editing the configs (for what?) and re-updating (which does |
| 32 |
nothing unless you've done an emerge sync) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
that and your using the -U flag, not recommend btw |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Joe Booker |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives