| 1 |
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 23:08, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 02:57, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 20:26, Steven Elling wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Does portage bomb out if make.conf is not present? If so, maybe portage |
| 5 |
> > > needs to be changed so that it will work without the file. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I definitely like the idea of creating make.conf docs and a link from |
| 8 |
> > the install docs. Also, why can't the portage ebuild contain a 0 byte |
| 9 |
> > make.conf file? After all, the file CAN be empty and portage will still |
| 10 |
> > work from the make.globals since make.conf serves no purpose but to |
| 11 |
> > override the system defaults. We could include a make.conf file in the |
| 12 |
> > stage tarballs with a few settings (depending on the settings of the |
| 13 |
> > stage) and a comment telling the user where the docs for make.conf are |
| 14 |
> > located both locally and on Gentoo.org. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I really do not see how having to either: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 1) Copy and paste everything |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> 2) Type if from a printout/whatever |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> is efficient or helps the average user? It is way easier |
| 23 |
> to just uncomment and change as needed with the help, etc |
| 24 |
> there in front of you. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
A link from the installation docs has already proved its worth. Look at |
| 27 |
the USE section of the install docs. They point to the use.xml file. |
| 28 |
Why would make.conf be any harder? I also said that the defaults used |
| 29 |
in building the stage would be included IN THE STAGE tarball, as it is |
| 30 |
now. Only the portage ebuild would contain the "blank" make.conf. If |
| 31 |
you used a pentium4 stage3 to install from, then the settings in |
| 32 |
make.conf would be the USE, CHOST, and CFLAGS used in building that |
| 33 |
stage and nothing more. I don't see how that makes anything harder on |
| 34 |
anyone. It puts all the documentation in a single place and makes it |
| 35 |
easier. As it is now the ONLY good documentation on make.conf is |
| 36 |
included in make.conf. This is unfortunate, since it requires users to |
| 37 |
use the slightly complex interactive feature of etc-update just to see |
| 38 |
documentation changes. I find that to be counter-intuitive, especially |
| 39 |
if everything were documented on gentoo.org and even in |
| 40 |
/usr/share/doc/portage-<version>. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> What happened to CONFIG_PROTECT and you having control? |
| 44 |
> Just mv the thing to make.conf.orig and edit a clean |
| 45 |
> file, or if you really want it to stay the same to see |
| 46 |
> what additions there is in future, leave as is, and |
| 47 |
> just put a 'source /etc/make.conf.foo' in there, and |
| 48 |
> add your changes to /etc/make.conf.foo. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
It has nothing to do with a clean file and more to do with the ease of |
| 51 |
changing make.conf and make.globals. Having the documentation for a |
| 52 |
file that needs to be changed in the file itself just seems sloppy to |
| 53 |
me. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> Come on guys, think what is best for the *distro* (meaning, |
| 56 |
> what will work best for the other 90% of users, and not |
| 57 |
> necessary for you ...). |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
I am thinking what is best for the distribution. I use alternate |
| 60 |
methods on my machines. I speak here mostly on feedback I have gotten |
| 61 |
from users I know personally and have talked to online, along with my my |
| 62 |
own feelings. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 66 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 67 |
Games Team |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives