Re: [gentoo-dev] Some suggestions

[Steven Elling]

On Saturday 06 September 2003 22:08, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 02:57, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 20:26, Steven Elling wrote:
> > > Does portage bomb out if make.conf is not present?  If so, maybe
> > > portage needs to be changed so that it will work without the file.
> >
> > I definitely like the idea of creating make.conf docs and a link from
> > the install docs.  Also, why can't the portage ebuild contain a 0 byte
> > make.conf file?  After all, the file CAN be empty and portage will
> > still work from the make.globals since make.conf serves no purpose but
> > to override the system defaults.  We could include a make.conf file in
> > the stage tarballs with a few settings (depending on the settings of
> > the stage) and a comment telling the user where the docs for make.conf
> > are located both locally and on Gentoo.org.
>
> I really do not see how having to either:
>
> 1) Copy and paste everything
>
> 2) Type if from a printout/whatever
>
> is efficient or helps the average user?  It is way easier
> to just uncomment and change as needed with the help, etc
> there in front of you.

It isn't efficient.  Keeping documentation out of make.conf, putting 
documentation where it should be (man page and www.gentoo.org), and leaving 
it to the user to create make.conf instead of the portage install will help 
the average user.

I am an experienced Linux user but I always look at things from the point of 
a new user because I once was one and know that if things were done a 
little differently it would of kept me from screwing up.  For instance, a 
new user might start using gentoo, make changes to make.conf and decide to 
update his/her system.  Well, I could see the system updating portage and 
then telling the user to run etc-update.  A new user running etc-update 
might not completely understand what is going on and fumble their way 
through it only to wipe out the changes to make.conf.  And, what about the 
sleep deprived?  It's possible for them to do the same.

> Come on guys, think what is best for the *distro* (meaning,
> what will work best for the other 90% of users, and not
> necessary for you ...).

I think this is the best for the distro.  For me, updates to make.conf are 
an annoyance especially because the only updates are to documentation 
duplicated in the file.  However, for the masses flocking to gentoo, it 
would be a preventative measure against screwing up their customizations.


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list