| 1 |
capitalista wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Is /etc/portage/includes really necessary? In my bug I said that a |
| 4 |
> possibility could be for /etc/portage/package.* directories. zmedico |
| 5 |
> coded it up so that it would be /usr/portage/includes/kde/ (yes, I |
| 6 |
> like using kde as an example). What about just allowing for |
| 7 |
> /usr/portage/kde? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That would clutter /etc/portage. The includes subdirectory separates the includes from things like /etc/portage/{profiles,modules}. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> When we were discussing using a source command in #gentoo-portage, a |
| 13 |
> lot of it went over my head, but it seemed to me that would just |
| 14 |
> create extra steps in the way of making a directory act like |
| 15 |
> /etc/portage. And, moving/adding/deleting directories/files and |
| 16 |
> letting Portage sort it out seems more intuitive to me than imports |
| 17 |
> and whatnot. If you know what /etc/portage is for, I don't think my |
| 18 |
> idea is going to confuse people that much. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
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. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
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. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Zac |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives