Re: [gentoo-dev] make.conf

[Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1390 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 08:17, C. Brewer wrote:
>  I was thinking that it might be nicer to do 2 files instead of the one.
> granted it's not too much trouble to do an interactive merge, and since my
> .nanorc is runs it so comments are colored, I really have no trouble picking
> out what I don't have commented. However, I see a real benefit to having a
> make.conf and make.conf.example (ala lilo,prozilla,etc.) so that the
> operator could have their six or seven line make.conf, only overriding the
> usual functions (CFLAGS,mirrors,PORT_OVERLAY,etc.) This would make it so
> that the make.conf.example could be auto-updated, and then those interested
> in playing with their make.conf could just periodically browse the
> make.conf.example to see if any new features have been added. Also, I seem
> to recall the when new user-affecting feature get added, there's usually
> some sort of announce here, so you really wouldn't need to look at it unless
> you see something here. I think this solution would provide amiable results
> for both camps:)

As I said in another post, I am still using a make.conf on some of
my systems that was originally from portage 1.8 or there abouts.
As long as you keep make.globals up to date, it should not be an
issue.


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



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