| 1 |
On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a |
| 4 |
>> symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line |
| 5 |
>> "source /etc/portage/make.conf"? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff like |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
FOO="${FOO} bar" |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are |
| 14 |
limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine |
| 15 |
all kinds of wacky stuff. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if |
| 18 |
/etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if |
| 19 |
possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing" |
| 20 |
for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm |
| 21 |
mistaken, which is always plausible :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-gmt |
Archives