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

[Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1243 bytes --]

On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 22:56, Aron Griffis wrote:

> Somebody mentioned that it would be possible to consolidate the comments
> to make.globals, and leave make.conf uncommented.  I think that would be
> fine.  Alternatively, I'd just leave the situation as-is.

I'm fairly agnostic on whether or not make.conf should be broken into
pieces.  Personally, I'm quite happy w/ a single file, but I wouldn't
complain about a make.conf.d directory.

I do want to argue against moving the comments from make.conf to
make.globals, however.  Given the standard Gentoo policy that users
should never make changes to make.globals, I don't think it would make
sense for us to tell the same users: "Just look in make.globals to see
what you can do w/ make.conf".  I think that such a plan would lead to a
lot more users editing make.globals directly.

I also _like_ having the comments in make.conf.  As it is the first part
of portage that our users encounter, I think it behooves us to document
it as well as possible.  (That said, I do realize that we do have a very
nice make.conf man page, so the comments in /etc/make.conf are not
entirely necessary.)

Well past my bedtime,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]