From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14669 invoked by uid 1002); 2 Jul 2003 03:52:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 6164 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 03:52:44 -0000 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030702025637.GH20197@time> References: <20030701025824.64ecc18a.seemant@gentoo.org> <20030702025637.GH20197@time> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-mnMa6gHE2j1tdzIHz1PM" Message-Id: <1057117913.16770.10.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 01 Jul 2003 23:51:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage X-Archives-Salt: 8fa364da-8308-4c86-89a0-8095906386de X-Archives-Hash: 66eccee6ddc9c35c6fcd6eb141872279 --=-mnMa6gHE2j1tdzIHz1PM Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 --=20 Grant Goodyear --=-mnMa6gHE2j1tdzIHz1PM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/AlbZptxxUuD2W3YRAvYuAJ9B8UfxYpcdjRPNomm3dYQqgCwiLACcDeFO sDpp0oG4NVqU7nqz1HE6p5Q= =vtJr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-mnMa6gHE2j1tdzIHz1PM--