On 09/10/2012 08:29 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
>>> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
>>> symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
>>> "source /etc/portage/make.conf"?
>>
>> I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?
>
> If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff
> like
>
> FOO="${FOO} bar"
>
> could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are
> limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine
> all kinds of wacky stuff.
It could cause duplicates, but for variables where FOO="${FOO} bar"
makes sense, duplicates probably aren't harmful.
> However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
> /etc/portage/make.conf is present,
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not true. Portage sources
both files, and settings from /etc/portage/make.conf will override
settings from /etc/make.conf.
> so symlinking, or even better, if
> possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
> for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
> mistaken, which is always plausible :)
I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy
tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in
the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed.
--
Thanks,
Zac
