| 1 |
On 11/19/05, Zac Medico <zmedico@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> That would clutter /etc/portage. The includes subdirectory separates the includes from things like /etc/portage/{profiles,modules}. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Well, I just posed that question because of ferringb's complaints |
| 5 |
about configurations in two different directories. I could care less |
| 6 |
really. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> 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. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The file grouping would be excellent in the sense that you could tar |
| 11 |
up a directory and make it available for others people to use, and all |
| 12 |
you would need to do is extract it to /etc/portage/includes. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> 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. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'd be happier if, pending you indeed went the source route, you'd |
| 17 |
source directories and not files. You could have another file that |
| 18 |
would contain info on the other directories, or maybe put in a |
| 19 |
variable in make.conf like PORTDIR_OVERLAY, creating |
| 20 |
/etc/portage/includes style functionality anywhere. Still, a source |
| 21 |
command just seems like more of a hassle than it needs to be for the |
| 22 |
end user. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives