| 1 |
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 16:49, Josep Sanjuas wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I think there could be more advantages. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
they dont seem very compelling..... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> It would make make.conf faster to |
| 8 |
> parse from scripts, |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There isnt much to be saved..... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
$ time bash /etc/make.conf |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
real 0m0.005s |
| 15 |
user 0m0.000s |
| 16 |
sys 0m0.000s |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> It'd also make portage easier to maintain, because for |
| 19 |
> example, if I want to change the disftile or rsync mirrors then I can edit |
| 20 |
> /etc/make.conf.f/fetch, or whatever its name would be, instead of finding |
| 21 |
> the appropiate vars in the big make.conf. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And editing a 250 line file is hard because...... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> In the files, all flags could |
| 26 |
> have their detailed descriptions, so that you wouldn't need to open another |
| 27 |
> file eg a make.conf.help. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I agree that splitting the documentation into make.conf.help would be a step |
| 30 |
backwards. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives