Michael Haubenwallner posted on Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:00:18 +0200 as excerpted:
> What about making /etc/portage/make.profile a directory rather than a > symlink, having /etc/portage/make.profile/parent to reference all the > flavours? We /almost/ have that already. I've long thought that /etc/portage/ profile should be the "real" profile instead of an override of the real profile, in which case it would have a parent file as you suggested, which could have multiple listed parents. Then /etc/portage/make.profile could be done away with, or more likely at least for a time, for compatibility reasons simply be a symlink -> profile. Then users would simply directly modify their /etc/portage/profile profile, including its parent file, as desired, instead of having the /etc/portage/make.profile symlink, with /etc/portage/profile being yet another layer on top of that. For all I know that might actually work right now as I've not tried it, but the portage (5) manpage does specifically say /etc/portage/profile supports all profile files EXCEPT parent, so unless the documentation is wrong... Assuming the documentation is correct, however, "all" we'd need to do on the user side would be to make portage and the other tools treat the parent file in /etc/portage/profile just as they do in other profile dirs, create an eselect module or equivalent to help manage that parent file, and update the documentation including the handbook accordingly. Updating other tree related tools would be required as well, of course, but as already pointed out, the real work would probably be in designing and setting up the new "flatter" profile tree layout and finding the appropriate new-layout location for all the existing settings. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
