Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage

[Toby Dickenson <tdickenson@devmail.geminidataloggers.co.uk>]

On Tuesday 01 July 2003 10:58, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Before I go and invalidate a bug, I thought I might take the idea around
> here to see if it has any merit in terms of usefulness/interest.
>
> The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be a
> bit of a stressful event.  And as portage's set of features grows, so too
> will the size of the make.conf file.  I get the impression that the
> make.conf file is a little hard to parse, with the huge comment blocks etc
> etc.  So my proposal is this: a make.conf.d directory which contains files
> for each section of the make.conf: use, flags, fetch, packagevars. 

Are there any other advantages to having an /etc/make.conf.d?.... I dont see 
any.

If the *only* advantage is to reduce the headache when using etc-update, then 
surely we should be looking for improvements to etc-update and sdiff, rather 
than changing the structure of one of our core configuration files.

(And Im not sure the proposed solution will help much anyway.... why should 
updating multiple files in /etc/make.conf.d be any easier than updating one 
monolithic /etc/make.conf?)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list