1 |
At Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:57:09 -0400 Mark Shields <laebshade@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 7/22/07, Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> Thank you. I was fooled by "man portage", but I should have know |
6 |
>> better. That is, I knew full well, but forgot, that /usr/profile is |
7 |
>> temporary and that user changes should be make in /etc/portage. |
8 |
>> Should I file a bug with proposed extra words for the beginning of the |
9 |
>> "portage" man page? |
10 |
>> -- |
11 |
>> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> |
14 |
> the manpage for portage has both references to /etc/make.profile/ and |
15 |
> /etc/portage/ (it's in the synopsis): |
16 |
|
17 |
Sure, but it doesn't remind you that changing /etc/portage is the way |
18 |
to go. Indeed if you read the description for |
19 |
|
20 |
> /etc/make.profile/ |
21 |
> package.use.mask |
22 |
|
23 |
(given later in the man page) it sounds like a fine way to prevent a |
24 |
use flag from applying to a package. |
25 |
|
26 |
It is correct that |
27 |
|
28 |
> /etc/portage/ |
29 |
> package.use |
30 |
|
31 |
is also described and also seems like a fine way to prevent (or |
32 |
enable) a use flag from applying to a package. |
33 |
|
34 |
I was asking if some words should be at the very top of the man page |
35 |
stating that /etc/make.profile is the place for user changes. |
36 |
|
37 |
allan |
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |