| 1 |
Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be a bit of a stressful event. |
| 3 |
> And as portage's set of features grows, so too will the size of the |
| 4 |
make.conf file. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I've always thought that /etc/make.conf should consist of env. variables |
| 7 |
only, have no comments and be generated dynamically not from other |
| 8 |
smaller files but from a utility or tool of some sort. Currently, the |
| 9 |
size of the make.conf file is huge and doing the following gives the |
| 10 |
essential structure that I'm talking about. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
grep -v '#' /etc/make.conf | cat -s > ~/make.conf.basic; more |
| 13 |
~/make.conf.basic |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You'll see that this is much more readable and easily editable. |
| 16 |
Comments can be placed in a different file such as /etc/make.conf.help. |
| 17 |
However, given that this method also results in more than one file it |
| 18 |
also brings about the need for a directory. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I suggest /etc/portage/. There is already a dir structure for |
| 21 |
/etc/portage/package.unmask. As a result, it would make sense for all |
| 22 |
portage/gentoo related files to be placed in there. This would include |
| 23 |
make.conf, rc.conf, help files and any others. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
To summarise, directory structure: yes, dynamic: yes, from zillions of |
| 26 |
smaller files: no (that's backward progress). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
A few of my thoughts. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
With regards. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Dhruba Bandopadhyay | dhruba[AT]codewordt.co.uk | ICQ: 31628525 |
| 33 |
Gentoo-sources-2.4.20-r5 | XFree-4.3.0-r3 | Nvidia-1.0.4363 | |
| 34 |
E-0.16.6-pre4 | ~x86 |
| 35 |
D8250 | Intel P4 I850E | Nvidia GeForce4 MX420 | Turtle Beach Santa Cruz |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives