Summary: | New and Improved Way to Handle /etc/portage | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | illuminata <capitalista> |
Component: | Enhancement/Feature Requests | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | chriswhite, codergeek42, curtis119, m.debruijne, whereami |
Priority: | High | Keywords: | InVCS |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 115839 |
Description
illuminata
2005-11-16 22:12:34 UTC
*** Bug 114308 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I don't exactly agree that my include directive idea in bug 114308 is the same as this idea, but i agree that they are related, so i'm content to clump them together and discuss here. I like "Possibility #1" better than #2, but I would make the suffix simply '.unmask' (etc), so you would have something like /etc/portage/kde.unmask. no need for unneccessarily long file names. that said, i'm biased, but i still like my include directive idea even more. Though, nothing would prevent the two from coexisting (ie, all /etc/portage/*.unmask would be loaded, and any include's in them would be parsed as well). I like the include because it allows the files to exist outside of /etc/portage, and keep them near your overlay(s), so they can be associated with them more easily, and removed more easily if needed. I do see one potential problem with include: the possibility of recursive inclusions. This shouldn't be hard to avoid in the implementation though (maximum include depth, or maintain a list of already-read files). There won't be an "include" or "source" or whatever directive in pacakge.* files. The code I added to trunk implements option 2, so you could simply use symlinks to emulate the desired "include" behavior. Released in 2.1_pre1. |