| 1 |
I was thinking that it might be nicer to do 2 files instead of the one. |
| 2 |
granted it's not too much trouble to do an interactive merge, and since my |
| 3 |
.nanorc is runs it so comments are colored, I really have no trouble picking |
| 4 |
out what I don't have commented. However, I see a real benefit to having a |
| 5 |
make.conf and make.conf.example (ala lilo,prozilla,etc.) so that the |
| 6 |
operator could have their six or seven line make.conf, only overriding the |
| 7 |
usual functions (CFLAGS,mirrors,PORT_OVERLAY,etc.) This would make it so |
| 8 |
that the make.conf.example could be auto-updated, and then those interested |
| 9 |
in playing with their make.conf could just periodically browse the |
| 10 |
make.conf.example to see if any new features have been added. Also, I seem |
| 11 |
to recall the when new user-affecting feature get added, there's usually |
| 12 |
some sort of announce here, so you really wouldn't need to look at it unless |
| 13 |
you see something here. I think this solution would provide amiable results |
| 14 |
for both camps:) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Chuck Brewer |
| 19 |
Registered Linux User #284015 |
| 20 |
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred. |
Archives