-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/12/12 01:55 PM, George Shapovalov wrote: > On Thursday 20 December 2012 13:21:11 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> Nope, he means /usr/portage/local, not /usr/local/portage. >> >> Alan's description *was* for /usr/portage/local
> Really? It matches /usr/local/portage pretty well. How did it come > around then? We had /usr/local/portage for ages for storing local > changes.. > /usr/local/portage has always been a convention or recommendation; it's not a directory that portage (package or tree) ever created, enforced, or did anything in particular to support. /usr/portage/local/ came around (i think -- i was around at this time but was not a dev and was not privy to decision making) so that locally modified ebuilds could be stored and distributed (ie via netmount or manual rsync) along with the rest of the portage tree without worries of the changes being wiped out on the next --sync. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlDTZhEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBEXwD+IuFOgsHcQDNaqUCUfSZW53ca 7gsST6Prls/7rPmpGqcBAKnnUIH48UPcDYrwexlNbmPzRN9CjYaeR36/2qo/hC47 =r5C9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
