Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Martin
To: "'gentoo-dev@g.o'" <gentoo-dev@g.o>
Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] etc-update
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:13:59
1 Re: make.conf, though, what about having portage automatically merge
2 uncommented make.conf settings, or at least the USE and CFLAGS? Given that
3 they're in the file as a way for the user to override settings in
4 make.globals, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have them overwritten
5 and commented out every time make.conf is updated. Granted, it's not a huge
6 inconvenience to merge by hand using etc-update, but I groan every time I
7 see make.conf pop up when I know the only thing I need to keep are the USE,
8 CFLAGS and MIRRORS settings.
10 -Steve
13 -----Original Message-----
14 From: Alain Penders [mailto:alain@g.o]
15 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: [gentoo-user] etc-update
17 Splitting config files in sections is useless, we can't dictate how other
18 application developers should structure or load configuration files.
21 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:31:23AM -0800, Balaji Srinivasan wrote:
22 > One way these conflicts could be reduced is by separating out sections in
23 > config files that will most probably be modified by the user and those
24 which
25 > are not. For example the USE directive and the CFLAGS directive from
26 > make.conf could be moved to a separate file. That way whenever portage
27 > changes, they wouldnt need to update those flags (or even if they did it
28 > would be easy to merge). This is in ofcourse be in addition to having a
29 way
30 > for the user to indicate which files he is interested in and hence those
31 > files should not be auto updated. Also maintaining a history of updates in
32 a
33 > separate directory would also
34 > help. This way in case things do go wrong we still have access to the old
35 > files.
36 >
39 --
40 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list