Neil Bothwick schreef: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:39:04 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote: > > >>Or, if there's some way to 'modularize' mutt, you could look into >>turning the patch into a 'plugin' (if such things exist, I know nothing >>about mutt), so that it would be optional to those who wanted to use it. > > > Or you could add a USE flag, so the patch was only applied for those who > want it. > > I thought of that, but since I don't know what the patch is or does, I didn't know if that would be appropriate. Though, come to think of it, if there's local USE flags like GAPING_SECURITY_HOLE (forgot what ebuild that's on, but saw it again yesterday during a light world update, makes me laugh), or -insecure-drivers, I suppose that the patch could have its own USE flag, no matter what it does.
But do you know the answer to Nick's question about what I said earlier? In a 'conflict' between two ebuilds of the same name and version, one in Portage and one in the overlay, does the choice of which one is used if I emerge the relevant package rely on which one is most recent(ly modified), or the location-- i.e., will the overlay ebuild always beat the Portage ebuild even if the Portage build is newer (because it was updated without changing the version number), or will the newer ebuild always win out, whether it's in overlay or main Portage? I think it's the latter, but I was tired when I wrote that, and offhand don't remember where to look it up to verify. Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
