| 1 |
On 9/10/2012 10:39 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if |
| 5 |
>> /etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if |
| 6 |
>> possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing" |
| 7 |
>> for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm |
| 8 |
>> mistaken, which is always plausible :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Thanks. Reasonable approach and good to know. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Well, I did warn about the likelihood I was wrong :) Pretty clever |
| 13 |
'cause that way even when I'm wrong (as turns out to have been the |
| 14 |
case), I'm still right :P |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away |
| 17 |
with something like this? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
/etc/make.conf: |
| 20 |
source /etc/portage/make.conf |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
/etc/portage/make.conf: |
| 23 |
if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then |
| 24 |
__GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE=gotit |
| 25 |
. |
| 26 |
. |
| 27 |
. |
| 28 |
endif |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
or are conditionals disallowed? As Zac mentions, hopefully it's |
| 31 |
harmless to duplicate things, but, personally, I would worry about the |
| 32 |
effect of duplicates on performance, and also in PORTDIR_OVERLAY. Plus, |
| 33 |
it just seems dirty. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-gmt |
Archives