Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage

[Alex Veber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 01 July 2003 17:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
> This is the reason that ufed has become so popular, and I think
> necessary - the complexity is getting too much.  Would a ufed like
> utility for make.conf be a better approach?  I am not so keen on
> spawning a number of small bit files for a make.cond.d as that does not
> fix the managebility issue - you will have to edit many files in turn,
> instead of just one file every time.
>
> BillK
>
> On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 21:41, Troy Dack wrote:
> > Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > >Hi All,
> > >
> > >Before I go and invalidate a bug, I thought I might take the idea around
> > > here to see if it has any merit in terms of usefulness/interest.
> > >
> > >The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be a
> > > bit of a stressful event.  And as portage's set of features grows, so
> > > too will the size of the make.conf file.  I get the impression that the
> > > make.conf file is a little hard to parse, with the huge comment blocks
> > > etc etc.  So my proposal is this: a make.conf.d directory which
> > > contains files for each section of the make.conf: use, flags, fetch,
> > > packagevars.
> >
> > Nice idea, something that I have thought about before.
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

splitting make.conf to many files is not a solution.
imho we should create a tool to parse make.conf and change it.
that way we leave the choice to the user on how to modiffy his settings.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Aara0Q5UUdinJT4RAv86AKDawnH25KeJBNHTQc9kmA5kSM75AwCgzlS0
kCvCMlFYrwtsrS9Wkov6pC8=
=fCXa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list