Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage

[William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>]

This is the reason that ufed has become so popular, and I think
necessary - the complexity is getting too much.  Would a ufed like
utility for make.conf be a better approach?  I am not so keen on
spawning a number of small bit files for a make.cond.d as that does not
fix the managebility issue - you will have to edit many files in turn,
instead of just one file every time.

BillK

On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 21:41, Troy Dack wrote:
> Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> 
> >Hi All,
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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.  
> >
> Nice idea, something that I have thought about before.
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list