From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11877 invoked by uid 1002); 1 Jul 2003 14:05:04 -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 14405 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 14:05:03 -0000 From: Toby Dickenson Reply-To: tdickenson@geminidataloggers.com To: Seemant Kulleen , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:05:02 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <20030701025824.64ecc18a.seemant@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20030701025824.64ecc18a.seemant@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307011505.02533.tdickenson@devmail.geminidataloggers.co.uk> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Interest Check: Dynamic config files for portage X-Archives-Salt: 38f7ea62-d07f-4bed-a473-9778b2917810 X-Archives-Hash: 782e62fb0851d1139763422e1bebb6a1 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