It would be really useful to developers of others archs if we had some code to check for archs in PORTDIR_OVERLAY, as it seems that PORTDIR's arch.list is actually frozen.
Created attachment 73453 [details, diff] overlay-arch.patch
Do overrides for $PORTDIR/profiles/* belong to /etc/portage, PORTDIR_OVERLAY, both, or a mixture? Note that categories and package.mask are currently overridden via /etc/portage. Also note ferringb's proposal to move some of these files: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=112513240928971&w=2
In "/usr/portage/profiles/arch.list", I see: alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 m68k mips ppc ppc64 ppc-macos s390 sh sparc x86 x86-fbsd If you develop for another arch, like netbsd or openbsd, for instance, you would have to add this x86-nbsd or x86-obsd to "/usr/portage/profiles/arch.list", and it would be overridden after "emerge sync". It would be cool if we could add ourselves the arch in our "${PORTDIR_OVERLAY}/profiles/arch.list", and then it would be concatenated to the main "${PORTDIR/profiles/arch.list".
(In reply to comment #3) > it would be overridden after "emerge sync". It would be cool if we could add > ourselves the arch in our "${PORTDIR_OVERLAY}/profiles/arch.list", and then it > would be concatenated to the main "${PORTDIR/profiles/arch.list". Agreed (as your patch implements). However, in order to be consistent, we should also add support for /etc/portage/arch.list.
*** Bug 113690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 75541 [details, diff] portage-2.1_pre1-overlay-arch.patch
Comment on attachment 75541 [details, diff] portage-2.1_pre1-overlay-arch.patch Changed its name to have identification.
Created attachment 75542 [details, diff] portage-2.1_pre2-overlay-arch.patch
Released in portage-2.1_pre3
I merged portage-2.1_pre3 and it's working fine. Thanks.
Sorry, but reopening the bug. There wasn't a problem until I tried repoman, and it does not recognize the "${PORTDIR_OVERLAY}/profiles/arch.list" content. Could anyone check it for us, please? I've a question: I am not a portage master and unfortunately I have no time to read it all, but are the lines I've added in the patch harmful to portage.py? I had no problem when I was using them, and it works for 2.0 and 2.1.
I think repoman is completely another story, it requires a lot mroe of changes to work with overlays.
There are others changes to do in repoman, it can be seen. But it seemed that repoman could get some info from portate.py about the architecture (it's what I meant in my last comment), altho' there should be still changes to handle things completely for repoman. As Flameeyes said, "repoman is completely another story", and I guess it deserves another bug request to have these features for overlay (profiles.desc, etc), too.
Released in 2.1_pre4