| 1 |
On 14.02.2017 21:22, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 2 |
> Johannes Rosenberger <gentoo@×××××.eu> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> Can anyone offer suggestions about this... is it even the right way to |
| 5 |
>>> proceed? |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>> Hello! |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I have portage-2.3.3 installed and in my portage manpage it is mentioned: |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> The file shall reside in etc/(make.profile|portage/(make.)?profile) and |
| 13 |
>> the syntax is |
| 14 |
>> <category>/<name>-<version> without the '=' in the front. |
| 15 |
> Thanks for that. I'm not at all sure what that line means. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> something like /etc/ (then either make a directory named `profile' or |
| 18 |
> one named `portage' if necessary) / (then make `profile' if |
| 19 |
> necessary.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That line is a regular expression (like in grep, sed, awk, vim,…): |
| 22 |
Parentheses always group something into an atom and pipes mark an |
| 23 |
alternative. '?' means that the preceding atom occurs zero or one time. |
| 24 |
So the expression means 'etc/' (I missed out the preceding slash), |
| 25 |
followed by alternatively 'make.profile' or 'portage/(make.)?profile'. |
| 26 |
The latter means 'portage/profile' with an optional 'make.' in between. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As you (hopefully) see, the expression resolves to the three |
| 29 |
alternatives mentioned in the man page. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> So, /etc/portage/profile/package.provided |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I followed a newish dictum of using the package part as a directory |
| 35 |
> name. So /etc/portage/profle/package.provided/FnameAndContentHere |
| 36 |
> It worked... thanks again. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I find the package.*-dirs very nice, too. Unfortunately, the tools like |
| 40 |
emerge, flaggie etc. seem to not always use the same file to write to, |
| 41 |
so the files get messed up over time. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> It worked.. still not getting everything installed but that |
| 46 |
> part worked... |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Well, that's not too astonishing… ;-) |
| 49 |
Especially if you do anything uncommon: I'm trying to build a |
| 50 |
musl-clang-4.0.0_rc1 system at the time, currently. And it took me some |
| 51 |
days to hack out how to let clang compile itself with incompatible |
| 52 |
symbols produced by gcc and clang… |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> Something else about this entry in `man portage': |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> [...] |
| 57 |
> SYNOPSIS |
| 58 |
> /etc/portage/make.profile/ or /etc/make.profile/ |
| 59 |
> site-specific overrides go in /etc/portage/profile/ |
| 60 |
> deprecated |
| 61 |
> [...] |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> So is the plan to do away with package.provided or just relocate it? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
No. "deprecated" is one of the files that reside in the profile, just |
| 66 |
like "make.profile". It marks a profile as deprecated and contains the |
| 67 |
successing profile and optionally upgrading instructions. |
Archives