| 1 |
On 05/26/04 Jason Rhinelander wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Ignoring ufed for the moment, this brings up an interesting idea - is |
| 4 |
> there any reason portage couldn't dynamically manage the |
| 5 |
> /etc/portage/package.use file, so that: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> USE="foo -bar" emerge somepackage |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> would add |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> cat-name/somepackage foo -bar |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> to package.use? That means a user could update packages and have them |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> installed the same way (unless, of course, I decided to specify a |
| 16 |
> differense USE= or changed package.mask). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Thoughts? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's technically possible, but portage doesn't touch any files in /etc |
| 21 |
directly, only ld.so.{conf,cache} and profile.env through env-update, |
| 22 |
and I don't want to change that policy. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Marius |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 30 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives