[gentoo-dev] make.conf

[gentoo-dev] make.conf

[BoehmeSilvio]

Hi,

I try to optimize the portage build mechanism for my system.

I found out, that all nessesary options are stored in make.conf /
make.defaults.
Is there any documentation for these files ?

What are the following options ?

CHOST
CFLAGS ( are these the gcc compiler flags ?? )
CXXFLAGS ( are these the gcc compiler flags ?? )
USE


Thanks

Re: [gentoo-dev] make.conf

[Daniel Robbins]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:03:37PM +0200, BoehmeSilvio wrote:

> I found out, that all nessesary options are stored in make.conf /
> make.defaults.  Is there any documentation for these files ?

/etc/make.defaults is antiquated.  If you have portage-1.5-r1 installed, then
you should remove it.  All your custom settings should go in /etc/make.conf.

> What are the following options ?
> 
> CHOST

This sets the HOST variable for compiles, i.e. "i686-pc-linux-gnu"

> CFLAGS ( are these the gcc compiler flags ?? )

Yes. 

> CXXFLAGS ( are these the gcc compiler flags ?? )

Yes.

> USE

This allows you to set what optional components you'd like compiled-in if
available.  For example, if you have "gnome" inside the USE string, then when
you compile xchat, it will include GNOME support.  All our dependencies are
also USE-aware.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] make.conf

[Chad M. Huneycutt]

Mike Flint wrote:
> I am a little lost on how the make.conf file works.  I uncommented the 
> chost, cflags, and cxxflags for the i686 portoin of the file.  Can I put 
> more than one statement in the use strings?  I get errors when I 
> uncomment the strings. Basically, I want to set the make.conf up for a 
> pentium 3 laptop and run gnome for the desktop.  Any information would 
> be appreciated.

Your USE line will look like

USE="foo bar baz"

If you don't know exactly what you want, then just uncomment the one line 
that starts USE= and you will be good to go.

Chad

[gentoo-dev] make.conf

[C. Brewer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1096 bytes --]

 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:)


-- 
Chuck Brewer
Registered Linux User #284015
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] make.conf

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] make.conf

[C. Brewer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1424 bytes --]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:46:58 +0200
Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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.

Well mine isn't quite as old as yours, but is still fairly old now. I really
have no problem interactively merging them, and it takes little time.
However since the mini-crusade on it, I thought it to be a decent suggestion
for perhaps a future version of baselayout? Maybe as Chris suggested for it,
pop the complete make.conf.example into the stages, with a little note
somewhere like "copy this to make.conf and uncomment as necessary, or if
you're comfortable, create your own based on the available variables".

 To be honest, I haven't changed mine once it was set, except to merge in
the new comments, and haven't excluded it simply to keep track of the
changes, which I could just as easily do watching a diff roll by of a
make.conf.example. Also, it's got easily twice the config areas of lilo, and
y'all provide an example for that.

 Either way, I don't really feel strongly enough about it, it was just an
idea I had to make peace in both camps so we could get on to bickering about
something new:)




-- 
Chuck Brewer
Registered Linux User #284015
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]