| 1 |
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 22:56, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Somebody mentioned that it would be possible to consolidate the comments |
| 4 |
> to make.globals, and leave make.conf uncommented. I think that would be |
| 5 |
> fine. Alternatively, I'd just leave the situation as-is. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'm fairly agnostic on whether or not make.conf should be broken into |
| 8 |
pieces. Personally, I'm quite happy w/ a single file, but I wouldn't |
| 9 |
complain about a make.conf.d directory. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I do want to argue against moving the comments from make.conf to |
| 12 |
make.globals, however. Given the standard Gentoo policy that users |
| 13 |
should never make changes to make.globals, I don't think it would make |
| 14 |
sense for us to tell the same users: "Just look in make.globals to see |
| 15 |
what you can do w/ make.conf". I think that such a plan would lead to a |
| 16 |
lot more users editing make.globals directly. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I also _like_ having the comments in make.conf. As it is the first part |
| 19 |
of portage that our users encounter, I think it behooves us to document |
| 20 |
it as well as possible. (That said, I do realize that we do have a very |
| 21 |
nice make.conf man page, so the comments in /etc/make.conf are not |
| 22 |
entirely necessary.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well past my bedtime, |
| 25 |
g2boojum |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |
Archives