Summary: | Please update handbook(s) to recommend /etc/portage/profile/package.use | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [OLD] Docs on www.gentoo.org | Reporter: | David J Cozatt <djcozatt> |
Component: | Installation Handbook | Assignee: | Docs Team <docs-team> |
Status: | VERIFIED WORKSFORME | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | floppym |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=2 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
David J Cozatt
2011-01-09 04:18:25 UTC
The portage(7) man page lists both /etc/portage/package.use and /etc/portage/profile/package.use as valid locations to set package-specific use flags. /etc/portage/profile/* is there to allow overriding of profile-level settings. In the case of package.use, both files accomplish essentially the same thing. /etc/portage/package.use is fine; the Portage team hasn't announced it's being deprecated or anything. The handbooks will stay as-is. I would agree except that...when updating baselayout /etc/portage/package.use was erased. I didn't have it config protected the first time I did this...and portage will soon go to baselayout 2 It's a minor point though I suppose; since usually baselyout updates don't seem to do this. Summing, I believe anyone who uses the file as directed in the handbook would risk having the file erased when updating to baselayout 2 and all their custom configuration. If they used /etc/portage/profile this would not be the case. That sounds like an issue with CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK or with the baselayout ebuild, not with handbook documentation. (In reply to comment #4) > That sounds like an issue with CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK or with the baselayout > ebuild, not with handbook documentation. Correct. Baselayout has nothing to do with /etc/portage/, regardless of version. |