| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> Adding another configurable to control it gets back to my point- |
| 3 |
> should be a simple, extensible *singular* method of doing this, not N |
| 4 |
> methods. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Agreed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Not so much transactional as groupping/seperation of each apps files. |
| 9 |
> (sort of). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The type of changes you're talking about could just as easily be |
| 12 |
> integrated into package.* with source command added to it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Where's the gain in adding a secondary location for these files, when |
| 15 |
> the same can be managed from the existing with a minor tweak? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm open to your idea of using a source command instead. I suppose that an unmasking tool could create new package.* files and that those could then be sourced easily enough. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The main difference that I see is that the directories approach allows a set of package.* files to be grouped logically. An alternative to my first implementation would be to include paths from a variable in make.conf, akin to PORTDIR_OVERLAY. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Two stats when os.path.isdir(parent) would suffice (single stat) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I tend to avoid seemingly insignificant performance enhancements, but for the sake of atomicity, I would opt for a single stat. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Zac |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives