| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:48:54PM -0500, Steven Elling wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 06 September 2003 13:05, David Sankel wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 2) make.conf updates to be more automated |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Most gentoo users, I believe, modify this file. This specific file |
| 6 |
> > changes quite often with updates. Since most users only modify the "USE" |
| 7 |
> > and "CFLAGS" components, having an update that is automatic is plausible. |
| 8 |
> > This feature is a trade off between the integrity and consistency of the |
| 9 |
> > system verses end-user maintenance time. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Requiring portage updates to make.conf at all has always bugged me. The |
| 12 |
> file is meant to contain custom settings for portage and to append to or |
| 13 |
> override variables in make.globals and the defaults. It should not hold |
| 14 |
> all the documentation for make.conf. It should not hold all the |
| 15 |
> defaults... that's what make.globals and the defaults are for. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Why is all the documentation on make.conf in make.conf anyway? Shouldn't it |
| 18 |
> be in make.globals or better yet the man page? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> make.conf is used for system customization and, as such, portage should |
| 21 |
> leave it alone. When portage is installed on the drive for the first time |
| 22 |
> it should not create make.conf. Portage should leave it up to the |
| 23 |
> admin/user of the box to create the file. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Most users find it very convienent to have all of that information |
| 27 |
available to them, especially on an initial install. Additionally, it's |
| 28 |
necessary to have that file present for Portage to operate properly, |
| 29 |
even if it hasn't been edited. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 34 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives