| 1 |
On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 08:17, C. Brewer wrote: |
| 2 |
> I was thinking that it might be nicer to do 2 files instead of the one. |
| 3 |
> granted it's not too much trouble to do an interactive merge, and since my |
| 4 |
> .nanorc is runs it so comments are colored, I really have no trouble picking |
| 5 |
> out what I don't have commented. However, I see a real benefit to having a |
| 6 |
> make.conf and make.conf.example (ala lilo,prozilla,etc.) so that the |
| 7 |
> operator could have their six or seven line make.conf, only overriding the |
| 8 |
> usual functions (CFLAGS,mirrors,PORT_OVERLAY,etc.) This would make it so |
| 9 |
> that the make.conf.example could be auto-updated, and then those interested |
| 10 |
> in playing with their make.conf could just periodically browse the |
| 11 |
> make.conf.example to see if any new features have been added. Also, I seem |
| 12 |
> to recall the when new user-affecting feature get added, there's usually |
| 13 |
> some sort of announce here, so you really wouldn't need to look at it unless |
| 14 |
> you see something here. I think this solution would provide amiable results |
| 15 |
> for both camps:) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As I said in another post, I am still using a make.conf on some of |
| 18 |
my systems that was originally from portage 1.8 or there abouts. |
| 19 |
As long as you keep make.globals up to date, it should not be an |
| 20 |
issue. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 27 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives