On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 20:55 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:42:31AM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote > > > man 5 portage about files in /etc/portage > > > > make.conf > > The global custom settings for Portage. See make.conf(5). If > > present, this file will over??? ride settings from /etc/make.conf. > > > > > > > 3. This news item is really useful, since the change has a potential > > > to break automated builds. > > > > We aren't discussing dropping support for the old locations here but > > about makeing the new location the default. > > This has the potential to cause problems for people who do things "the > old way", and find that their settings in /etc/make.conf are not being > applied. Instead of a news item, maybe we should be looking at warnings > and/or errors in "emerge"... > > 1) If there is a /etc/make.conf, but no /etc/portage/make.conf, emerge > should generate an ewarn message. Is emerge smart enough to generate > only one ewarn even though it's emerging umpteen packages? > > 2) If there is a /etc/make.conf *AND* a /etc/portage/make.conf, emerge > should halt immediately with an error message. If a user has made a > /etc/make.conf, they will probably expect it to take effect, which is > not what's going to happen. This will save the user forums from being > hit with the same question over and over about settings in /etc/make.conf > being ignored.
I'd go for a little more sophistication: it should exit with an error if /etc/make.conf is present and is not a symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf, because until all tools support the new location such a symlink might be necessary > 3) When support for /etc/make.conf is finally dropped, the presence of > /etc/make.conf should make emerge halt immediately with an error message. 1+ -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
