On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:58:56PM -0500, capitalista wrote:
> On 11/19/05, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That would clutter /etc/portage. The includes subdirectory
> > separates the includes from things like /etc/portage/{profiles,modules}.
(*cough* modules shouldn't be in there imo)
>
> Well, I just posed that question because of ferringb's complaints
> about configurations in two different directories. I could care less
> really.Just because I complain, doesn't mean I'm right (Dig through this ml for instances where I've demonstrated my bullheaded nature) ;) Just found it unclean that it was defacto configuration in two locations, rather then enabled by user/system configuration. If people want to make a mess out of their configuration, that's their business, I don't like mandating it via portage though. :) > > A "source" command would provide most of the same abilities as the > >directory path based approach. It wouldn't allow files to be > grouped in the same way but I'm not sure how useful that ability would be. > > The file grouping would be excellent in the sense that you could tar > up a directory and make it available for others people to use, and all > you would need to do is extract it to /etc/portage/includes. My concern was in implementing it as a directory. I haven't complained about implementing a secondary var to insert pseudo profiles (although I'll state up front, I think it has the potential to be unclean) ;) > > I think that I would be happy with a "source" command. For example, > > you could have a package.unmask.kde file somewhere and then source > > that file inside /etc/portage/package.unmask. > > I'd be happier if, pending you indeed went the source route, you'd > source directories and not files. You could have another file that > would contain info on the other directories, or maybe put in a > variable in make.conf like PORTDIR_OVERLAY, creating > /etc/portage/includes style functionality anywhere. Still, a source > command just seems like more of a hassle than it needs to be for the > end user. source should be file only; I'm not commenting on adding a sourcedir command, since I haven't really thought it through (just throwing out the possibility so others can tell me I'm being stupid). ~harring
pgprFOAVAJrt0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
