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.