| 1 |
Zac Medico posted on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:01:47 -0800 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Commit 86e75790954e766beba75443d967b2c25055c5b0 added support for |
| 4 |
> make.conf to be a directory, but the feature was undocumented. |
| 5 |
> Therefore, update the man pages, as suggested in bug #465164, comment |
| 6 |
> #9. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What about other apps that parse make.conf? A note that this might break |
| 9 |
compatibility with some of them, and/or with other scripts people |
| 10 |
sometimes post on the forums, lists, etc, could be worthwhile. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I believe that's why I chose to stick with a make.conf file that simply |
| 13 |
sourced a bunch of other files, instead of simply making it a directory |
| 14 |
and sticking all those other files in the dir, when I first read about |
| 15 |
the possibility. I have scripts myself that simply source make.conf, |
| 16 |
that I'd have to rewrite with a for loop to process a directory. It's |
| 17 |
not hard to do, but people haven't had to worry about it and so they |
| 18 |
haven't. If people aren't thinking about that when they up and make |
| 19 |
make.conf a directory, they might well wish they had! =8^0 |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Most of the others I've made dirs, tho. It's much easier configuring |
| 22 |
portage that way, and as I said, my make.conf is already just a bunch of |
| 23 |
source directives, giving me pretty much the best of both worlds. =:^) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
(Until I add a new configuration file and forget to add a corresponding |
| 26 |
source line for it in make.conf, as I did recently. =:^( ) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'll eventually do make.conf as well, but it's not worth worrying about |
| 29 |
changing my scripts until all the packages that reference it are known to |
| 30 |
handle it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 34 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 35 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives