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 |