From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24848 invoked by uid 1002); 16 Mar 2003 19:43:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 3475 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 19:43:02 -0000 From: George Shapovalov Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:43:17 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200303161022.26831.wigren@home.se> <3E74CA65.6070600@yahoo.com.br> <20030316190853.GA28936@cerberus.oppresses.us> In-Reply-To: <20030316190853.GA28936@cerberus.oppresses.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303161143.17383.george@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=CARRIAGE_RETURNS,IN_REP_TO,NOSPAM_INC,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT version=2.43 X-Spam-Level: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ACCEPT_KEYWORDS + bootstrap.sh X-Archives-Salt: ce90cb5e-1ab7-4786-8328-a5c42df93c74 X-Archives-Hash: ea5b83341119d1b0cff84b51a656f4fd I agree with the reasoning behind this (meaning I think this is a right way to do it). However IMHO in order to stop complaint from both sides, this should probably be documented. Just a note in isntall instructions should suffice.. (There are some related notes at the moment, but not exactly about that. And yes, it is quite apperent from the script itself, but how many people actually read it?) George On Sunday 16 March 2003 11:08, Jon Portnoy wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 04:03:01PM -0300, Felipe Ghellar wrote: > > Jon Portnoy wrote: > > >On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:22:26AM +0100, Per Wigren wrote: > > >>During the installation I set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" in /etc/make.conf, > > >>but when running bootstrap.sh it gets ignored.. > > > > > >This is not a bug, this is a feature. :-) > > > > Ignoring the user settings is not a feature, it's a bug. Especially in a > > meta-distribution, where the system should be built just the way the > > _user_ wants it (in contrast with the way the _developers_ want it). > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11374 > > > > Felipe Ghellar > > > > > > -- > > It doesn't ignore what the user wants. It just doesn't look where you > think it should. > > If someone really wants to use newer packages to bootstrap, they can > edit the packages file in their profile. Otherwise things can > potentially break and we get more bug reports. > > I actually believe that the package versions in the profile should > probably be upped because it's somewhat outdated. However, if you want > to tune your settings for bootstrap, do it in places other than > make.conf and don't file bug reports if something breaks in the process. > > Users can do anything they want in make.conf after bootstapping. > > If someone has a special need to use newer packages during bootstrap, > they can edit profiles//packages. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list