| 1 |
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 10:58, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi All, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Before I go and invalidate a bug, I thought I might take the idea around |
| 5 |
> here to see if it has any merit in terms of usefulness/interest. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be a |
| 8 |
> bit of a stressful event. And as portage's set of features grows, so too |
| 9 |
> will the size of the make.conf file. I get the impression that the |
| 10 |
> make.conf file is a little hard to parse, with the huge comment blocks etc |
| 11 |
> etc. So my proposal is this: a make.conf.d directory which contains files |
| 12 |
> for each section of the make.conf: use, flags, fetch, packagevars. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Are there any other advantages to having an /etc/make.conf.d?.... I dont see |
| 15 |
any. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If the *only* advantage is to reduce the headache when using etc-update, then |
| 18 |
surely we should be looking for improvements to etc-update and sdiff, rather |
| 19 |
than changing the structure of one of our core configuration files. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
(And Im not sure the proposed solution will help much anyway.... why should |
| 22 |
updating multiple files in /etc/make.conf.d be any easier than updating one |
| 23 |
monolithic /etc/make.conf?) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives