From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25667 invoked by uid 1002); 7 Sep 2003 10:41:39 -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 9848 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2003 10:41:37 -0000 From: Martin Schlemmer Reply-To: azarah@gentoo.org To: Jan Krueger Cc: Chris Gianelloni , Steven Elling , Gentoo-Dev In-Reply-To: <200309070559.21887.jk@microgalaxy.net> References: <1062896271.20020.28.camel@vertigo> <1062904114.8455.62.camel@nosferatu.lan> <200309070559.21887.jk@microgalaxy.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-wzE7flNzqAWMJP6oT7rs" Message-Id: <1062931498.8455.75.camel@nosferatu.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:44:59 +0200 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some suggestions X-Archives-Salt: 9bd5055f-1940-4dc7-aaf3-9006e149bc6d X-Archives-Hash: 570eb669a31af4a834527a754b1cbfa4 --=-wzE7flNzqAWMJP6oT7rs Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 07:59, Jan Krueger wrote: > On Sunday 07 September 2003 03:08, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > Come on guys, think what is best for the *distro* (meaning, > > what will work best for the other 90% of users, >=20 > >From my point of view the best for the 90% of users in this case (make.c= onf)=20 > would be: > 1. a very precise documentation with examples about the user settable thi= ngs=20 > for make.conf thats accessable via a standard command, like man make.conf= or=20 > info make.conf >=20 $ man make.conf does work .. tried it lately ? > 2. a clean, easy to read configuration file without mess and things the u= ser=20 > doesnt care about so it is easy for the user (even easier for tools) to=20 > change exactly the setting the user wants to change because it is easier = to=20 > identify the place where the change must happen and easier to identify th= e=20 > values that already are there. >=20 > You may try this yourself: > nano -w make.conf as it gets installed >=20 > and > nano -w make.conf with just the settings you actually use, everything els= e=20 > thrown out. >=20 > Which one is easier to modify?=20 Personally if it is a new app/whatever I try, than not having to search for the howto to setup it is usually the easiest. > So i strongly support: > On Saturday 06 September 2003 23:48, Steven Elling wrote: > > Requiring portage updates to make.conf at all has always bugged me. Th= e > > file is meant to contain custom settings for portage and to append to o= r > > override variables in make.globals and the defaults. It should not hol= d > > all the documentation for make.conf. It should not hold all the > > defaults... that's what make.globals and the defaults are for. > > > > Why is all the documentation on make.conf in make.conf anyway? Shouldn= 't > > it be in make.globals or better yet the man page? > > > > make.conf is used for system customization and, as such, portage should > > leave it alone. When portage is installed on the drive for the first t= ime > > it should not create make.conf. Portage should leave it up to the > > admin/user of the box to create the file. > Thats sound like a clean solution to me. Thats the way it should be. >=20 > I refuse to update my customised and over the time grown settings in=20 > /etc/make.conf with /etc/make.conf with comments for things i never inten= d to=20 > use. That doesnt make any sense to me to put such useless comments with=20 > documentation that has to be in the man page anyway in a file thats so=20 > important for my system. > I refuse to let anything automaticly update this file. > I refuse to touch this file until there is a strong need to edit it becau= se i=20 > want a feature/useflag or whatever. So then, and only then, i edit this f= ile=20 > or let a tool edit it (eg: euse). >=20 Yes and ? I still use a make.conf from portage 1.8 or there abouts on some of my systems. > If a change, because of a new advanced portage version, to my existing=20 > settings is needed, this change should be delayed as other software does = it: > mark the old thing as deprecated and warn the user for some time|versions= to=20 > give the user time to get informed and do the change manually or by using= a=20 > dedicated tool. >=20 That is the point of *having* to update make.globals. The problem it seems with most people, is that they do not just want to run 'etc-update' and just press '2' when coming to updating make.conf, or whatever. --=20 Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa --=-wzE7flNzqAWMJP6oT7rs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/WwwqqburzKaJYLYRAq8KAJ9bSb57KD9Gs6vkmuPS1+heL4S9awCghkGV SURNHNc+OnfpRlHI4uhkkHM= =bfUP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-wzE7flNzqAWMJP6oT7rs--