| 1 |
Marius Mauch posted <20051116160434.629519df@××××××××××××××××××.net>, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:04:34 +0100: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> You have a list of (some of) these things? From a portage POV those |
| 5 |
> things are broken, the only thing you can safely assume about |
| 6 |
> make.conf is that it exists (and even that is debatable). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Plus, I'm enthusiastically using the still fairly new "source xyzfile" |
| 9 |
functionality in portage to break out my portage config into various |
| 10 |
modules (use, fs, net, etc). My make.conf itself is simply a collection |
| 11 |
of several "source" lines. If whatever is brokenly assuming it can |
| 12 |
collect such info from make.conf is sourcing the file using bash, or if it |
| 13 |
too understands the source directive, no problem, but if not, it could be |
| 14 |
a serious problem! |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
FWIW, I've experienced no issues here. (I don't use distcc, so that |
| 17 |
already mentioned issue doesn't affect me.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 21 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 22 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 23 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives