Talk:/etc/portage/repos.conf

From Gentoo Wiki
Jump to:navigation Jump to:search
Note
Before creating a discussion or leaving a comment, please read about using talk pages. In particular, sign comments using ~~~~ and add new discussions at the bottom of the page. New discussions should be made visible with {{Talk|date = 2024-05-19}}.
== Discussion title ==

{{Talk|date = 2024-05-13}}

A comment [[User:Larry|Larry]] 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
: A reply [[User:Sally|Sally]] 11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:: Another reply [[User:Larry|Larry]] 21:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:: Your reply ~~~~

Navigate to first:

Can it be a file

Talk status
This discussion is done as of Nov 23 2016.

Is this true [that repos.conf can be a file]? On Project:Portage/Sync there is no mention that /etc/portage/repos.conf could be a file. — The preceding unsigned comment was added to the article by Charles17 (talkcontribs) 23 April 2015 and moved here by Maffblaster 23 April 2015

Yes, it is true. Also, next time you should post questions, concerns, comments, etc. that you have on an article on the associated discussion page. :) --Maffblaster (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the misplaced InfoBox. This place indeed is much better.
So, regarding the question "file or directory, what about adding the developer's recommendation from the forum? --Charles17 (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It was definitely a good catch on your part. Feel free to change the information in this article when the developer confirms that the use of repos.conf as a file has been depreciated in favor of the repos.conf directory. Keep up the good work! --Maffblaster (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

/etc/portage/repos.conf/gentoo.conf examples

Talk status
This discussion is done as of Nov 23 2016.

IMHO these examples are not best placed here. The Rsync example only needs to be created if it differs from /usr/share/portage/config/repos.conf and Git example only showing the other sync method should better be homed on the Sync related article. --Charles17 (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

clone-depth and sync-depth description

Talk status
This discussion is done as of 2022-04-01.

Due to the issues with git fetch not defaulting to --depth 1 as outlined in bug #824782 I created this PR. Consequently, the description of clone-depth and sync-depth needs to be updated:

clone-depth
Specifies clone depth to use for DVCS repositories. Defaults to 1 (only the newest commit). If set to 0, the depth is unlimited, because git is not executed with --depth #.
sync-depth
Specifies sync depth to use for DVCS repositories. Defaults to 1 (only the newest commit). If set to 0, the depth is unlimited, because git is not executed with --depth #.

--Duxsco (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! That section is actually a copy paste from "man portage"... In the past, I hesitated to leave the section in, as we generally don't duplicate the man pages on the wiki.
I think the best thing to do for the wiki will be to just remove the section and direct the reader to look at the man page - otherwise we will have a hard time keeping the wiki in sync with the man pages. I'll replace it with a suggestion to look at the man page, so the user will always be looking at the canonical documentation rather than a possibly outdated copy.
As for the issue itself, being in the man page, I suspect the thing to do would be to file a bug against the documentation component in bugzilla, maybe with a patch - or something like that. Sorry for not having a simpler solution.
I'm actually unsure of the best way to flag/fix issues in man pages - when I work it out properly I'll document the procedure, I think it is an important thing to have on the wiki.
- Ris (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I try to make sure that the manpage gets updated with the introduction of the PR change.
--Duxsco (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Cool, that would be _really_ great :). I'll close the discussion to keep the numbers down. Help:Talk_pages#Closing_discussions -- Ris (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Btw, you know your comment would have been a perfect candidate for a direct change to the article - if in this specific case the whole section wasn't redundant. I've checked the man page out properly since, that section had become really out of date compared to the current man page, which now also has much more info.
If you ever feel like making any more direct changes, they are always much appreciated from knowledgeable people like yourself ;) - Contributor's guide. We're inundated with discussions, and there just doesn't seem to be the manpower to go through them all quick enough (and the volume of them takes away from time to work on the wiki).
-- Ris (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)