[gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

Following the July 24th thread about changing the default location of
make.conf and make.profile in the new stages, I propose to commit 2
news items in 2 or 3 days.
The first one (this one) is directed to all users and informs about
the change and what to do. The second one (next email) will be
directed to catalyst users.
This news item should be presented to as many users as possible.
Following Fabian's request in the previous thread, I'm trying to
restrict it to default/linux profiles only. I don't know if it's
possible to filter with default/linux/*, if there are other
alternatives or if we will have to list *all* relevant profiles (the
latter case is not appealing).

Does anyone have any comments about this news item?



Title: make.conf and make.profile move to /etc/portage
Author: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2012-09-08
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/*

Starting next week, new stages will have make.conf and make.profile
moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in the installation
defaults, that will only affect new installs so it doesn't affect
current systems.

Current users don't need to do anything. But if you want to follow the
gfepreferred location, you may want to take the chance to move the files
in your system(s) to the new location.


- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQSB4ZAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPBNUP/iuZlVtdKm0pJnV2w43e2djm
U5eepkslMTITH66OuxWOGDaI5Qam7L4RVVC6nRs7WZi09ea9u8QD8/dF1S5gzTfK
F7hmcR5ynxm1gqePEZT3Ooj8fE+BRiZGVrYtaxMC6+gtUiqnsl68IS5aJZ/lfnWI
B9vPv5a9dx/4dPv9FUl2rbo8/+a/O+aiNqNOiZJ+nmdEvdZjBZy8nXzkeHQTZkX4
7pxFFFDGi/e2FzKiZZfNeeY6LKm1c1kYQs92KP3h+kne4zfpbYxFub9QIlWSH3oe
GS6kPCdeg+waNVugsjBNKEw5Z5QjyURwFB9oVDyWpa5kNzKYCNEK4swDNs8vO+W9
4TOVYrmTweyRaZPceCG2GG9PHcRxnmO2pMalFdvbRCAi4BlEH1cbbG/89r6zAU62
0rhykkuIbpjMx9kwOvC0FSdlzbQxmEWmWfcwETlWUZgdKDbjt1wzlRL4zbGoy+Aa
dseBj6s6aHrpQab5WPa+79dIZ2yiO+PJED1IzseFGjpjUn6hOmMMS7A3KRclX3yk
5Ugl+x+FNYB9+czf6rIi/2f9gwy2tIGJT343XJkkeVzHyjTmWn7OvZVfPzzhyhqW
pjIPA+ZaApfRs6lV70fCWaSb9slzunUwG7kTYw8lxnA5WKkiNWAxbQbvSkCMWk9P
uSvllBQwzbiKtAi3eBWl
=m+Ij
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:

> Title: make.conf and make.profile move to /etc/portage
         00000000011111111112222222222333333333344444444
         12345678091234567890123456789012345678901234567

Too long, maximum 44 characters are allowed.

> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/*

Unfortunately, wildcards won't work.

> gfepreferred location, you may want to take the chance to move the files
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Typo.

Ulrich

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Duncan]

Ulrich Mueller posted on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:30:46 +0200 as excerpted:

>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
> 
>> Title: make.conf and make.profile move to /etc/portage
>         00000000011111111112222222222333333333344444444
>         12345678091234567890123456789012345678901234567
> 
> Too long, maximum 44 characters are allowed.

Suggestion: just omit "to /etc/portage", leaving only

Title: make.conf and make.profile move
       0000000001111111111222222222233
       1234567809123456789012345678901

The shortened title is enough to say what it's about and the body is IMO 
just about perfect in terms of info/brevity; in fact, perhaps the best 
I've seen, especially for a first draft, so good job!

Now to hash out the profile problem...

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Here is the second draft for this news item.


On 06-09-2012 03:52, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> Following the July 24th thread about changing the default location
> of make.conf and make.profile in the new stages, I propose to
> commit 2 news items in 2 or 3 days. The first one (this one) is
> directed to all users and informs about the change and what to do.
> The second one (next email) will be directed to catalyst users. 
> This news item should be presented to as many users as possible. 
> Following Fabian's request in the previous thread, I'm trying to 
> restrict it to default/linux profiles only. I don't know if it's 
> possible to filter with default/linux/*, if there are other 
> alternatives or if we will have to list *all* relevant profiles
> (the latter case is not appealing).
> 
> Does anyone have any comments about this news item?


Title: make.conf and make.profile move
Author: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2012-09-08
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage
Display-If-Keyword: alpha
Display-If-Keyword: amd64
Display-If-Keyword: arm
Display-If-Keyword: hppa
Display-If-Keyword: ia64
Display-If-Keyword: m68k
Display-If-Keyword: mips
Display-If-Keyword: ppc
Display-If-Keyword: ppc64
Display-If-Keyword: s390
Display-If-Keyword: sh
Display-If-Keyword: sparc
Display-If-Keyword: x86

Starting next week, new stages will have make.conf and make.profile
moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in the installation
defaults, that will only affect new installs so it doesn't affect
current systems.

Current users don't need to do anything. But if you want to follow the
preferred location, you may want to take the chance to move the files
in your system(s) to the new location.


- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=o5GT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Duncan]

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto posted on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 18:05:07 +0000 as
excerpted:

> Starting next week, new stages will have make.conf and make.profile
> moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in the installation
> defaults, that will only affect new installs so it doesn't affect
> current systems.
> 
> Current users don't need to do anything. But if you want to follow the
> preferred location, you may want to take the chance to move the files in
> your system(s) to the new location.

While the following reads somewhat smoother to me, maybe it's /just/ me, 
so another opinion would be appreciated.  The current wording is already 
clear, so just going with it is fine with me.


Starting next week, new stages will locate make.conf and make.profile in
/etc/portage instead of /etc.  This change to the installation defaults 
only affects new systems and both locations will continue to be 
supported. Whether you wish to move the files to their new /etc/portage 
location is therefore entirely up to you.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Aaron W. Swenson]

On 9/8/2012 2:05 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Here is the second draft for this news item.
> ...
> Starting next week, new stages will have make.conf and make.profile
> moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in the installation
> defaults, that will only affect new installs so it doesn't affect
> current systems.

I'd be specific on the date as I could read that news item after this
actually happens but be under the impression that it hasn't happened yet.

- Aaron

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This news item was committed.

On 06-09-2012 03:52, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> Following the July 24th thread about changing the default location
> of make.conf and make.profile in the new stages, I propose to
> commit 2 news items in 2 or 3 days. The first one (this one) is
> directed to all users and informs about the change and what to do.
> The second one (next email) will be directed to catalyst users. 
> This news item should be presented to as many users as possible. 
> Following Fabian's request in the previous thread, I'm trying to 
> restrict it to default/linux profiles only. I don't know if it's 
> possible to filter with default/linux/*, if there are other 
> alternatives or if we will have to list *all* relevant profiles
> (the latter case is not appealing).
> 
> Does anyone have any comments about this news item?
> 
> 
> 
> Title: make.conf and make.profile move to /etc/portage Author:
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> Content-Type:
> text/plain Posted: 2012-09-08 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 
> Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage Display-If-Profile:
> default/linux/*
> 
> Starting next week, new stages will have make.conf and
> make.profile moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in
> the installation defaults, that will only affect new installs so it
> doesn't affect current systems.
> 
> Current users don't need to do anything. But if you want to follow
> the gfepreferred location, you may want to take the chance to move
> the files in your system(s) to the new location.
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQTPhrAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP+0wQAKuVRvE1ZnaDLIKYasxexsGL
RI2NhvBayW+N8Al1cwtpKO1sMKu2bbC1mflyB5uTFekExUZ+nQ6+ILywJzyh7VQ4
B+NglgInSkssJ5quEqE8C6sgoMTEw7OhLcTcc2BOP5TOP73PxhtqbeorBSae9gN+
ubsqpRcTpV7EHKJAd1lyEOEHuSYu4gjed1FNTWINPLkvhTSOpgZmRXhtYV0nrSbb
reDA0V5FIBG+2Q0LmVGqyHnXLGbM/Eq8ZKrYS+mts/gNOe4tb9VJsx0byRBN4RXS
+q3PGvV+liMnw/tlrvAny118zgxluzjsVW5MRVODmmm4DQVR073b2CGUkwSu01Lb
G3ImRrjsD0O6nX2/Lzs50VFN5OSh6k2l9yd3UIKmLzDkqclAPvqckafnRlpDgSZV
qcZbbvGEFbS3I1wMaBbdcTT8K1S94f+KW+E1d+ROKU/vhUvUJ3ZCY0MypKqtHnrC
5xLszZ6Xwf4t0UmaS4HlDtklhzYQTvPp3k4pKMLjW6Q9wcG4aCSE8/PCrXjPc0oW
qsaMS/rIen6GzIy/os2whZwyytpRWPlAbvbPo9mSUeqq9n2JyowQF35fp6Xy5Clp
A+9cVxWnDTOjv7BLMGxZx2HX1xdcyFCnfEKYD23XfJG5LhHQ1YaQfRPoL+DdCScO
0ctTiZYTz8pokhoIrBu0
=I8II
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Doug Goldstein]

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This news item was committed.
>

So the news item was a bit ambiguous on if I wanted to make the change
myself to the new locations when I could actually make the change.
Current portage supports it? Or is their a new version coming which I
would need?

-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Zac Medico]

On 09/09/2012 02:42 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> This news item was committed.
>>
> 
> So the news item was a bit ambiguous on if I wanted to make the change
> myself to the new locations when I could actually make the change.
> Current portage supports it? Or is their a new version coming which I
> would need?

It's been supported in stable portage since portage-2.1.9.24 stabilized
in November/December 2010:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346819
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=d493a029add855e6ade95d60b57ec7b8f5aba067
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=f15c724e6ea494c21e57289b0361614b6656ac35
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Duncan]

Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:57:30 -0700 as excerpted:

> On 09/09/2012 02:42 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
>> <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> This news item was committed.
>>>
>>>
>> So the news item was a bit ambiguous on if I wanted to make the change
>> myself to the new locations when I could actually make the change.
>> Current portage supports it? Or is their a new version coming which I
>> would need?
> 
> It's been supported in stable portage since portage-2.1.9.24 stabilized
> in November/December 2010:

Zac,

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"?

Back when I first became aware of the movement toward
/etc/portage/make.conf, I'd guess in late 2010 or early 2011 given your 
dates, I tried both setting only /etc/portage/make.conf, which failed due 
to some third party utility (which I'd hope has been fixed now but I've 
not tested it), and making /etc/make.conf a simple symlink/source, which 
caused portage some indigestion.

So I'm wondering if the latter problem's now (tested) fixed, and people 
can use the new location but still put either a compatibility symlink or 
source at the old location to keep old scripts and the like working, 
without portage suffering the indigestion at the prospect that it did at 
least way back then.

If you haven't tested it and want me to, then file a bug if necessary, 
just say so, but it'd be nice to know whether you believe it to be 
working now, before I go try it again.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Zac Medico]

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?
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Duncan]

Duncan posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:59:32 +0000 as excerpted:

> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf

<cringe!>  I apologize for the terrible "sentence" structure (and 
spelling "knowledge" or rather practice).  Hopefully it's obvious what I 
intended to ask, tho.

-- 
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

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Duncan]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Gregory M. Turner]

On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> 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?

If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff like

   FOO="${FOO} bar"

could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are 
limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine 
all kinds of wacky stuff.

However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if 
/etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if 
possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing" 
for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm 
mistaken, which is always plausible :)

-gmt

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Duncan]

Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted:

> However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
> /etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
> possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
> for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
> mistaken, which is always plausible :)

Thanks.  Reasonable approach and good to know.

(I actually just did a sync.  I should go adjust the location before I 
try to build anything, and start my own tests instead of debating what 
/could/ happen.  Excuse me... =:^)

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Zac Medico]

On 09/10/2012 08:29 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff
> like
> 
>   FOO="${FOO} bar"
> 
> could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are
> limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine
> all kinds of wacky stuff.

It could cause duplicates, but for variables where FOO="${FOO} bar"
makes sense, duplicates probably aren't harmful.

> However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
> /etc/portage/make.conf is present,

I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not true. Portage sources
both files, and settings from /etc/portage/make.conf will override
settings from /etc/make.conf.

> so symlinking, or even better, if
> possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
> for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
> mistaken, which is always plausible :)

I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy
tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in
the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Duncan]

Zac Medico posted on Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:29:36 -0700 as excerpted:

> I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy
> tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in
> the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed.

I posted to the portage-dev list about this so you probably already know,
but for others, particularly users, following this transition thread:

Gentoo's bash-completion breaks when make.conf is in /etc/portage.  Bug
filed back in early July and there's a simple enough patch, but
app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp has only the shell-tools herd, no dedicated
maintainer, and 13 open bugs including this one, all apparently portage
(or gentoolkit) related, with the last release in 2010 (Dec) with
stabilization a month later.  So it's not seeing a lot of movement.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424777

So anyone who depends on tab-completion for their emerge commands, etc,
may want to either hold off on the move or apply the patch manually, until
this is fixed.

FWIW here's the listing of all open app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp bugs:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=app-shells%2Fgentoo-bashcomp

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Ben de Groot]

On 12 September 2012 08:02, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Gentoo's bash-completion breaks when make.conf is in /etc/portage.  Bug
> filed back in early July and there's a simple enough patch, but
> app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp has only the shell-tools herd, no dedicated
> maintainer, and 13 open bugs including this one, all apparently portage
> (or gentoolkit) related, with the last release in 2010 (Dec) with
> stabilization a month later.  So it's not seeing a lot of movement.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424777
>
> So anyone who depends on tab-completion for their emerge commands, etc,
> may want to either hold off on the move or apply the patch manually, until
> this is fixed.

Or use zsh instead. You can thank me later. ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Gregory M. Turner]

On 9/10/2012 10:39 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted:
>
>> However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
>> /etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
>> possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
>> for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
>> mistaken, which is always plausible :)
>
> Thanks.  Reasonable approach and good to know.

Well, I did warn about the likelihood I was wrong :)  Pretty clever 
'cause that way even when I'm wrong (as turns out to have been the 
case), I'm still right :P

In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away 
with something like this?

/etc/make.conf:
source /etc/portage/make.conf

/etc/portage/make.conf:
if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then
__GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE=gotit
.
.
.
endif

or are conditionals disallowed?  As Zac mentions, hopefully it's 
harmless to duplicate things, but, personally, I would worry about the 
effect of duplicates on performance, and also in PORTDIR_OVERLAY.  Plus, 
it just seems dirty.

-gmt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

[Zac Medico]

On 09/12/2012 02:16 AM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away
> with something like this?
> 
> /etc/make.conf:
> source /etc/portage/make.conf
> 
> /etc/portage/make.conf:
> if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then
> __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE=gotit
> .
> .
> .
> endif
> 
> or are conditionals disallowed? 

Yes, conditionals are not allowed. The parser only supports variable
assingments and source commands.

> As Zac mentions, hopefully it's
> harmless to duplicate things, but, personally, I would worry about the
> effect of duplicates on performance, and also in PORTDIR_OVERLAY.  Plus,
> it just seems dirty.

I would recommend to use /etc/make.conf alone, until whatever tools you
use have been updated to support /etc/portage/make.conf. There's no need
for any of these compatibility workarounds that you and Duncan have been
suggesting.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac