| 1 |
On Friday 03 December 2004 23:13, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:26:17 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | # ln -sf /usr/portage/profiles/base /etc/make.profile |
| 6 |
> | # emerge -p system |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | These are the packages that I would merge, in order: |
| 9 |
> | |
| 10 |
> | !!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink? |
| 11 |
> | !!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Indeed. So... Can anyone think of a better name than "inherit-only"? Can |
| 14 |
> anyone think of a good way of indicating this other than by an empty |
| 15 |
> file? Would it be reasonable for me to file a bug asking that at some |
| 16 |
> point in the future portage detects the existence of said file and |
| 17 |
> displays a better message instead? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Heh.. It'd take about 2 minutes to write and test the 3 lines of code to |
| 20 |
implement said enhancement. The question is, is this the correct enhancement. |
| 21 |
If so, why? I'd be more inclined to use a file to define a profile as being |
| 22 |
"valid" rather than "invalid". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Perhaps a "description" file that describes the purpose of that profile. |
| 25 |
Perhaps even a metadata.xml that contains the purpose of that specific |
| 26 |
profile directory within its cascade as well as a flag indicating to portage |
| 27 |
whether it's intented to be linked to. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Anyway, whatever happens - please, no bugs!! ;) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives