| 1 |
On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 18:43, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > What happened to CONFIG_PROTECT and you having control? |
| 5 |
> > Just mv the thing to make.conf.orig and edit a clean |
| 6 |
> > file, or if you really want it to stay the same to see |
| 7 |
> > what additions there is in future, leave as is, and |
| 8 |
> > just put a 'source /etc/make.conf.foo' in there, and |
| 9 |
> > add your changes to /etc/make.conf.foo. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It has nothing to do with a clean file and more to do with the ease of |
| 12 |
> changing make.conf and make.globals. Having the documentation for a |
| 13 |
> file that needs to be changed in the file itself just seems sloppy to |
| 14 |
> me. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is not the only issue - check some of my later posts. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > Come on guys, think what is best for the *distro* (meaning, |
| 20 |
> > what will work best for the other 90% of users, and not |
| 21 |
> > necessary for you ...). |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I am thinking what is best for the distribution. I use alternate |
| 24 |
> methods on my machines. I speak here mostly on feedback I have gotten |
| 25 |
> from users I know personally and have talked to online, along with my my |
| 26 |
> own feelings. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I will ask again - if you did not physically have to merge 10/20+ config |
| 29 |
files every time, would it still be such an issue ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
As I posted in other mails - there are a few good reasons why we do |
| 32 |
things as we do, and the CONFIG_EXCLUDE might be a solution to the |
| 33 |
'problem' (which in my opinion is still not CONFIG_PROTECT or 100% |
| 34 |
the comments in the config files, but rather the 'merge process needed |
| 35 |
for config files). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 41 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 42 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives