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