Re: [gentoo-dev] Some suggestions

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3159 bytes --]

On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 18:57, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Please dont suggest splitting make.conf - its a crap idea and we'll end
> up with a mess like like conf.d (where it is justified, but its still a
> mess - and an ongoing pain).  You get files changing, adds and deletions
> that happen and you are not aware of the changes.

I was thinking more like devfs.d and devfsd.conf than the way conf.d is
used.

>  For instance, how many people missed the addition of hdparm to conf.d? 
> There have been a number of disastrous events where wholesale changes
> have occurred when they were not intended: modules.autoconf was
> particularly bad (I ended up with 3 dead systems), as was the symlink to
> the php config file from mod_php and php proper.  At least if you have
> one file, you only have one place to look.  Plus it makes sense to keep
> all related information on one file, not piecemeal.
> 
> What this will mean, is that after every emerge problem, you will have
> to find and check dozens of files, not one core file.

Actually, it would be a single make.conf which is generated from files
in make.conf.d.  I think it would be pretty easy if it uses the same
style as devfs.d and devfsd.conf.  This would also allow us to maintain
backwards compatibility with older versions of portage.  You can look in
make.conf (devfsd.conf) to find the problem, and it lists the settings
as they are in the files, so you can see that the error is in a
particular file and fix it quickly.

> And think of the newbie, gentoo is becoming very complex to understand.

The main reason is lack of consistency more than complexity.  As long as
everything uses the same interface, it should not be hard to
understand.  You only have to learn one concept and apply it multiple
times.

> Another point is I run 3 make.conf's on a laptop, and load the one
> applicable to the site I am at automatically (actually sed the file).  I
> would have to parse a number of files instead of just one.

Yes and no, at least with the way I'm proposing.  The make.conf file
would be generated from the files in make.conf.d at some time.  It would
probably use some function, such as maybe portage-update, to generate
the make.conf file.  You could easily configure it via a /etc
configuration file, similar to etc-update.  I would think it would be
something we would setup to run at initial boot.

Honestly, I would like to see a simple curses-based portage-config
program which allows you to change the settings used in make.conf.  This
would solve the problems of documentation completely, as we could move
any hand-holding to the application and take them out of the file
itself.

> I think perhaps make.conf would be better named emerge.environment or
> gentoo.environment to underscore its function and importance!

Except make.conf really *isn't* that important.  It only needs to
exist.  The purpose of make.conf is to override the defaults.  The
make.globals file would be a better candidate for getting a name change.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

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