On Thursday 20 December 2012 13:21:11 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > Nope, he means /usr/portage/local, not /usr/local/portage.
> 
> Alan's description *was* for /usr/portage/local
Really? It matches /usr/local/portage pretty well. How did it come around 
then? We had /usr/local/portage for ages for storing local changes..

Reply via email to