Re: [gentoo-dev] Some suggestions

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 07:59, Jan Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday 07 September 2003 03:08, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > Come on guys, think what is best for the *distro* (meaning,
> > what will work best for the other 90% of users,
>
> >From my point of view the best for the 90% of users in this case (make.conf)
> would be:
> 1. a very precise documentation with examples about the user settable things
> for make.conf thats accessable via a standard command, like man make.conf or
> info make.conf
>

 $ man make.conf

does work .. tried it lately ?

> 2. a clean, easy to read configuration file without mess and things the user
> doesnt care about so it is easy for the user (even easier for tools) to
> change exactly the setting the user wants to change because it is easier to
> identify the place where the change must happen and easier to identify the
> values that already are there.
>
> You may try this yourself:
> nano -w make.conf as it gets installed
>
> and
> nano -w make.conf with just the settings you actually use, everything else
> thrown out.
>
> Which one is easier to modify?

Personally if it is a new app/whatever I try, than not having to search
for the howto to setup it is usually the easiest.


> So i strongly support:
> On Saturday 06 September 2003 23:48, Steven Elling wrote:
> > Requiring portage updates to make.conf at all has always bugged me.  The
> > file is meant to contain custom settings for portage and to append to or
> > override variables in make.globals and the defaults.  It should not hold
> > all the documentation for make.conf.  It should not hold all the
> > defaults... that's what make.globals and the defaults are for.
> >
> > Why is all the documentation on make.conf in make.conf anyway?  Shouldn't
> > it be in make.globals or better yet the man page?
> >
> > make.conf is used for system customization and, as such, portage should
> > leave it alone.  When portage is installed on the drive for the first time
> > it should not create make.conf.  Portage should leave it up to the
> > admin/user of the box to create the file.
> Thats sound like a clean solution to me. Thats the way it should be.
>
> I refuse to update my customised and over the time grown settings in
> /etc/make.conf with /etc/make.conf with comments for things i never intend to
> use. That doesnt make any sense to me to put such useless comments with
> documentation that has to be in the man page anyway in a file thats so
> important for my system.
> I refuse to let anything automaticly update this file.
> I refuse to touch this file until there is a strong need to edit it because i
> want a feature/useflag or whatever. So then, and only then, i edit this file
> or let a tool edit it (eg: euse).
>

Yes and ?  I still use a make.conf from portage 1.8 or there abouts on
some of my systems.

> If a change, because of a new advanced portage version, to my existing
> settings is needed, this change should be delayed as other software does it:
> mark the old thing as deprecated and warn the user for some time|versions to
> give the user time to get informed and do the change manually or by using a
> dedicated tool.
>

That is the point of *having* to update make.globals.


The problem it seems with most people, is that they do not just want to
run 'etc-update' and just press '2' when coming to updating make.conf,
or whatever.


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa