Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Bugzilla Bug 112779: New and Improved Way to Handle /etc/portage

[Brian Harring]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:58:56PM -0500, capitalista wrote:
> On 11/19/05, Zac Medico <zmedico@×××××.com> wrote:
> > That would clutter /etc/portage.  The includes subdirectory
> > separates the includes from things like /etc/portage/{profiles,modules}.
(*cough* modules shouldn't be in there imo)
>
> Well, I just posed that question because of ferringb's complaints
> about configurations in two different directories. I could care less
> really.

Just because I complain, doesn't mean I'm right (Dig through this ml 
for instances where I've demonstrated my bullheaded nature) ;)

Just found it unclean that it was defacto configuration in two 
locations, rather then enabled by user/system configuration.

If people want to make a mess out of their configuration, that's their 
business, I don't like mandating it via portage though. :)

> > A "source" command would provide most of the same abilities as the
> >directory path based approach.  It wouldn't allow files to be
> grouped in the same way but I'm not sure how useful that ability would be.
>
> The file grouping would be excellent in the sense that you could tar
> up a directory and make it available for others people to use, and all
> you would need to do is extract it to /etc/portage/includes.

My concern was in implementing it as a directory.

I haven't complained about implementing a secondary var to insert 
pseudo profiles (although I'll state up front, I think it has the 
potential to be unclean) ;)

> > I think that I would be happy with a "source" command.  For example,
> > you could have a package.unmask.kde file somewhere and then source
> > that file inside /etc/portage/package.unmask.
>
> I'd be happier if, pending you indeed went the source route, you'd
> source directories and not files. You could have another file that
> would contain info on the other directories, or maybe put in a
> variable in make.conf like PORTDIR_OVERLAY, creating
> /etc/portage/includes style functionality anywhere. Still, a source
> command just seems like more of a hassle than it needs to be for the
> end user.

source should be file only; I'm not commenting on adding a sourcedir 
command, since I haven't really thought it through (just throwing out 
the possibility so others can tell me I'm being stupid).

~harring