| 1 |
What about separating them for the phases of the build process? i mean |
| 2 |
thing like: |
| 3 |
/etc/make.conf.d/fetch |
| 4 |
/etc/make.conf.d/pkg_configure |
| 5 |
/etc/make.conf.d/pkg_build |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Or it could become an XML file with such section (and eventually |
| 8 |
more/different), i think the user want to configure the building |
| 9 |
process and this could be a more intuitive way to find what you need. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 12 |
> Hi All, |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Before I go and invalidate a bug, I thought I might take the idea |
| 15 |
> around |
| 16 |
> here to see if it has any merit in terms of usefulness/interest. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be |
| 19 |
> a |
| 20 |
> bit of a stressful event. And as portage's set of features grows, so |
| 21 |
> too |
| 22 |
> will the size of the make.conf file. I get the impression that the |
| 23 |
> make.conf file is a little hard to parse, with the huge comment blocks |
| 24 |
> etc |
| 25 |
> etc. So my proposal is this: a make.conf.d directory which contains |
| 26 |
> files |
| 27 |
> for each section of the make.conf: use, flags, fetch, packagevars. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Michele Balistreri |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer, KDE Team |
| 31 |
Rome, Italy |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives