| 1 |
This is the reason that ufed has become so popular, and I think |
| 2 |
necessary - the complexity is getting too much. Would a ufed like |
| 3 |
utility for make.conf be a better approach? I am not so keen on |
| 4 |
spawning a number of small bit files for a make.cond.d as that does not |
| 5 |
fix the managebility issue - you will have to edit many files in turn, |
| 6 |
instead of just one file every time. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
BillK |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 21:41, Troy Dack wrote: |
| 11 |
> Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> >Hi All, |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> >Before I go and invalidate a bug, I thought I might take the idea around here to see if it has any merit in terms of usefulness/interest. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> >The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be a bit of a stressful event. And as portage's set of features grows, so too will the size of the make.conf file. I get the impression that the make.conf file is a little hard to parse, with the huge comment blocks etc etc. So my proposal is this: a make.conf.d directory which contains files for each section of the make.conf: use, flags, fetch, packagevars. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> Nice idea, something that I have thought about before. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives