Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Balaji Srinivasan <BSrinivasan@×××××××××××××××.com>
To: "'Martin, Stephen'" <stephen.martin@××××××××.com>, "'gentoo-dev@g.o'" <gentoo-dev@g.o>
Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] etc-update
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:19:44
1 I second the groan...make.conf gets update pretty much everytime portage
2 gets updated. New features are always added...Most people dont even touch
3 those lines they leave it to be the defaults. The only lines i modified were
4 the USE, CFLAGS and MIRRORS. Looks like that is the normal behaviour. Now
5 making a change for the better for the majority of the users is better than
6 no change.
7 Balaji
9 -----Original Message-----
10 From: Martin, Stephen [mailto:stephen.martin@××××××××.com]
11 Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:14 PM
12 To: 'gentoo-dev@g.o'
13 Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] etc-update
16 Re: make.conf, though, what about having portage automatically merge
17 uncommented make.conf settings, or at least the USE and CFLAGS? Given that
18 they're in the file as a way for the user to override settings in
19 make.globals, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have them overwritten
20 and commented out every time make.conf is updated. Granted, it's not a huge
21 inconvenience to merge by hand using etc-update, but I groan every time I
22 see make.conf pop up when I know the only thing I need to keep are the USE,
23 CFLAGS and MIRRORS settings.
25 -Steve
28 -----Original Message-----
29 From: Alain Penders [mailto:alain@g.o]
30 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] etc-update
32 Splitting config files in sections is useless, we can't dictate how other
33 application developers should structure or load configuration files.
36 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:31:23AM -0800, Balaji Srinivasan wrote:
37 > One way these conflicts could be reduced is by separating out sections in
38 > config files that will most probably be modified by the user and those
39 which
40 > are not. For example the USE directive and the CFLAGS directive from
41 > make.conf could be moved to a separate file. That way whenever portage
42 > changes, they wouldnt need to update those flags (or even if they did it
43 > would be easy to merge). This is in ofcourse be in addition to having a
44 way
45 > for the user to indicate which files he is interested in and hence those
46 > files should not be auto updated. Also maintaining a history of updates in
47 a
48 > separate directory would also
49 > help. This way in case things do go wrong we still have access to the old
50 > files.
51 >
54 --
55 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
57 --
58 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] etc-update Michael Kohl <citizen428@××××××.org>