wireless posted on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:33:13 -0500 as excerpted: > On 08/12/2015 09:52 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On 12 Aug 2015 18:27, Brian Dolbec wrote: >>> 2) There is another alternate location that you can define files to >>> ignore locally without having to commit them to .gitignore. >>> Consider .gitignore a global setting. There is another setting inside >>> .git/info/exclude which is a local config file that will persist and >>> not be affected by pulls. >> >> as i stated, there's no reason for these paths to ever be committed. >> conversely, some people (not unreasonably so) will place files in there >> that have historically had known meanings. adding these to the global >> gitignore is simply the right thing to do and negatively impacts no >> one. > > As a gentoo user now coding again, I find the need to have things > "logically organized" really helps in my efforts. Like most others, I > get codes from a variety of places and try to follow the 'logical gentoo > organization'. I use /usr/local/portage extensively for ebuilds that I > develop. There is also /opt/ which seems to collect up a variety of > ebuilds
Confused... What do /opt and /usr/local/portage have to do with the gentoo repo's .gitignore, which should only need ignore settings for locations inside the main tree, /usr/portage by default? A .gitignore listing for /usr/portage/local and /usr/portage/distfiles, etc, makes sense, since that's inside the default tree location. But /opt and /usr/local/portage aren't inside that default location and are thus about as apropos to that as the price of tea on Mars, aren't they? -- 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
