| 1 |
Seemant, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
For many of the reasons already mentioned, I don't like this idea. I |
| 4 |
don't understand the advantage over the current situation. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Seemant Kulleen wrote:[Tue Jul 01 2003, 05:58:24AM EDT] |
| 7 |
> The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be |
| 8 |
> a bit of a stressful event. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I think it's more stressful with more files. Furthermore, as somebody |
| 11 |
already mentioned, this method allows new feature settings to be |
| 12 |
installed without me knowing about it. I'd rather just merge the large |
| 13 |
file, see the new settings, etc. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> And as portage's set of features grows, |
| 16 |
> so too will the size of the make.conf file. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I don't see how this is a problem, or how splitting it up solves the |
| 19 |
problem. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I get the impression that |
| 22 |
> the make.conf file is a little hard to parse, with the huge comment |
| 23 |
> blocks etc etc. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Again, multiple files just makes it harder. Now I get to grep for the |
| 26 |
setting I want to change before I can actually change it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> This way, the actual make.conf file (which tends to be about 10 lines |
| 29 |
> of uncommented items in the usual case) can be dynamically generated |
| 30 |
> from the information in those files. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Somebody mentioned that it would be possible to consolidate the comments |
| 33 |
to make.globals, and leave make.conf uncommented. I think that would be |
| 34 |
fine. Alternatively, I'd just leave the situation as-is. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Aron |
Archives