Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:34:09 -0700 as excerpted: > On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote: >> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a >> symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line "source >> /etc/portage/make.conf"? > > I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?
Back then, portage complained. It's been awhile ago and I didn't write it down, but I seem to remember something about double inclusion. However, it's quite possible that was my diagnosis, not portage's complaint. I just returned to /etc/make.conf, because with both that and /etc/portage/make.conf portage had problems, and with /etc/portage/ make.conf only, something else didn't work. But as I said that was way back when I first read about it, probably in the changelog on my first update after it hit a release, so I'd guess it's looonngg fixed by now. Now that you've confirmed it works for you now, I'll play around with things a bit and file bugs if I see 'em. As always, thanks. =:^) (Now back to that kernel 3.6-git bug I just finished bisecting and was about to file upstream... workqueue merge, commit 63d95a91, crashing in schedule/core.c on line 1654, FWIW.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
