| 1 |
On 11/18/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Feedback? Well, I don't like it mainly. :) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> This makes portage go looking in two different locations for |
| 5 |
> overrides; I know from looking through the code, |
| 6 |
> /etc/portage/package.* overrides the includes, but users won't. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Configuration in two seperate locations of the same thing is usually a |
| 9 |
> bad idea (exempting global configuration, user configuration, which |
| 10 |
> this is not). It's not intuitive, mainly. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I'd argue for extending the existing files syntax rather then this |
| 13 |
> tbh, tag in a source command makes a bit more sense to me. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Plus side, with a source command, you just comment it out and you've |
| 16 |
> disabled that import. With your solution, have to remove the file |
| 17 |
> from the directory. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Is /etc/portage/includes really necessary? In my bug I said that a |
| 20 |
possibility could be for /etc/portage/package.* directories. zmedico |
| 21 |
coded it up so that it would be /usr/portage/includes/kde/ (yes, I |
| 22 |
like using kde as an example). What about just allowing for |
| 23 |
/usr/portage/kde? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
When we were discussing using a source command in #gentoo-portage, a |
| 26 |
lot of it went over my head, but it seemed to me that would just |
| 27 |
create extra steps in the way of making a directory act like |
| 28 |
/etc/portage. And, moving/adding/deleting directories/files and |
| 29 |
letting Portage sort it out seems more intuitive to me than imports |
| 30 |
and whatnot. If you know what /etc/portage is for, I don't think my |
| 31 |
idea is going to confuse people that much. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives