| Summary: | app-portage/layman's initial configuration involving editing make.conf could be automated | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Maurice Volaski <mvolaski> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gunnar Wrobel (RETIRED) <wrobel> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | hkbst |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Maurice Volaski
2008-04-29 23:53:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > The actual editing of make.conf would involve copying the existing make.conf > file, appending the line You'll need to do better than that, you need to determine whether there is already such a statement. Can you guarantee to do that correctly for every conceivable user setup? This shouldn't be that hard, something like "grep source /etc/make.conf | grep layman -" should find whether the relevant line is there. I suppose some user could trip this up by having it on two lines, but that seems kind of remote. The newer version (1.2.0) changes the storage location to /usr/local/portage/layman. The ebuild creates this directory now and places an empty make.conf there. I won't add code to automatically modify /etc/make.conf because the idea of having an external make.conf is to refrain from something like that. Preparing an empty make.conf in the storage location was actually a bad idea (overwrites old list of overlays) and has been removed again. So the behavious simply remains as before. After I upgraded to layman-1.2.0 the old list of overlays was still in /usr/portage/local/layman/make.conf so I moved everything from /usr/portage/local/layman/ to /usr/local/portage/layman/ and now upgrading to layman-1.2.0-r1 hosed my /usr/local/portage/layman/make.conf I don't get it. 1) You said preparing an empty make.conf erased the make.conf that was there. Well, isn't that a bug? 2) I see etc-update all the time automerging "trivial" updates. How is auto-editing the make.conf any different? 3) Assuming #2 is missing above, portage will "fail" if your make.conf is empty, but can't the portage team modify portage to be layman-aware. Then it might not even be necessary to include it as part of make.conf. Portage will know where to look for it and do that on its own. (In reply to comment #6) > I don't get it. > > 1) You said preparing an empty make.conf erased the make.conf that was there. > Well, isn't that a bug? The internal make.conf in /usr/local/portage/layman is no configuration file so I don't consider that behaviour a bug. > > 2) I see etc-update all the time automerging "trivial" updates. How is > auto-editing the make.conf any different? /etc/make.conf is a very central component of a Gentoo system. I don't think editing this file automatically is a reasonable thing to do. I'd rather accept the few confused users that did not correctly follow the post install instructions. > > 3) Assuming #2 is missing above, portage will "fail" if your make.conf is > empty, but can't the portage team modify portage to be layman-aware. Then it > might not even be necessary to include it as part of make.conf. Portage will > know where to look for it and do that on its own. Too much magic involved. But you can ask the portage guys about this. > |
