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

[Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1392 bytes --]

Seemant,

For many of the reasons already mentioned, I don't like this idea.  I
don't understand the advantage over the current situation.

Seemant Kulleen wrote:[Tue Jul 01 2003, 05:58:24AM EDT]
> The idea stems from the fact that etc-updating a make.conf file can be
> a bit of a stressful event.  

I think it's more stressful with more files.  Furthermore, as somebody
already mentioned, this method allows new feature settings to be
installed without me knowing about it.  I'd rather just merge the large
file, see the new settings, etc.

> And as portage's set of features grows,
> so too will the size of the make.conf file.  

I don't see how this is a problem, or how splitting it up solves the
problem.

> I get the impression that
> the make.conf file is a little hard to parse, with the huge comment
> blocks etc etc.  

Again, multiple files just makes it harder.  Now I get to grep for the
setting I want to change before I can actually change it.

> This way, the actual make.conf file (which tends to be about 10 lines
> of uncommented items in the usual case) can be dynamically generated
> from the information in those files.

Somebody mentioned that it would be possible to consolidate the comments
to make.globals, and leave make.conf uncommented.  I think that would be
fine.  Alternatively, I'd just leave the situation as-is.

Aron

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