Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Owen Gunden <ogunden@××××××××××××.edu>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:29:31
Message-Id: 20030701222928.GA23646@force.stwing.upenn.edu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage by Toby Dickenson
1 On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
2 > On Tuesday 01 July 2003 16:49, Josep Sanjuas wrote:
3 >
4 > > I think there could be more advantages.
5 >
6 > they dont seem very compelling.....
7
8 There is one compelling advantage that I believe was intended by the
9 original poster. That is this: in the current situation, when I upgrade
10 baselayout I get a new make.conf which I have to merge by hand. In my
11 experience this is definitely the hardest file in /etc to merge because of
12 its size and the amount of customization I've done to it. If it were split
13 into separate files, it would be easier to see where the new stuff is.
14 Also, I would be familiar with the particular sections that I'd made
15 changes to, so I could simply copy the maintainers version of any files
16 that I know I haven't changed.
17
18 I may be a special case, though; I can't use etc-update because it has IMHO
19 a horrendous interface.
20
21 I'm skeptical about a configuration tool to fix make.conf automatically,
22 because I've seen so many such things go wrong. On the other hand, ufed is
23 indispensible, and if such a utility were as easy-to-use and
24 easy-to-know-what-it's-doing as ufed I would definitely consider using it.
25
26 Owen
27 searching his pockets for 2 pennies..
28
29 --
30 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage Toby Dickenson <tdickenson@××××××××××××××××××××××××××××.uk>