Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nick Jones <carpaski@××××××.net>
To: Jani Monoses <jani@××.ro>
Cc: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] portage config files question
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:24:08
Message-Id: 20030221201012.A26432@twobit.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] portage config files question by Jani Monoses
1 > Are there any strong arguments against having all/most portage
2 > config files in one place? For instance /etc/portage would be a
3 > good place for make.conf make.globals make.profile And there are
4 > a lot of other config and metadata files scattered in
5 > /usr/portage and /var
6
7 Things will change somewhat like that for portage-2.1.
8
9 > Also since make.conf is supposed to be the one the user modifies
10 > it is annoying to have it need an update when some comments or
11 > options are added.The user can either ignore the update or
12 > manually merge the changes and set the USE vars and other
13 > preferences back. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a
14 > make.conf.example or even make.globals which is updated while
15 > make.conf is entirely left to the user.I know there used to be a
16 > make.defaults but I don't know what that was for.
17
18 You're taking 'annoyance' over 'sanity' and 'acknowledgement'. From
19 the development side, it's _much_ better to get on the users nerves
20 every once in a while than to track down weird bugs. Generally it's
21 a good way to catch the users attention to changes in functionality
22 as well. Portage can merge trivial changes by itself anyway, if
23 etc-update doesn't merge it, then some defaults have changed and
24 you should probably look at them.
25
26 --NJ
27
28 --
29 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list