From: "Gregory M. Turner" <gmt@malth.us>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:16:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <505052F3.8090300@malth.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pan.2012.09.11.05.39.31@cox.net>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-12 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 3:52 [gentoo-dev] News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile) Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2012-09-06 5:30 ` Ulrich Mueller
2012-09-06 6:36 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2012-09-08 18:05 ` [gentoo-dev] " Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2012-09-08 18:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2012-09-09 18:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Aaron W. Swenson
2012-09-09 20:13 ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2012-09-09 21:42 ` Doug Goldstein
2012-09-09 21:57 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-10 0:59 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2012-09-10 1:34 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-10 6:06 ` Duncan
2012-09-11 3:29 ` Gregory M. Turner
2012-09-11 5:39 ` Duncan
2012-09-12 9:16 ` Gregory M. Turner [this message]
2012-09-12 10:04 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-11 16:29 ` Zac Medico
2012-09-12 0:02 ` Duncan
2012-09-12 3:55 ` Ben de Groot
2012-09-10 1:34 ` Duncan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=505052F3.8090300@malth.us \
--to=gmt@malth.us \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox