On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:46:58 +0200 Martin Schlemmer wrote: > As I said in another post, I am still using a make.conf on some of > my systems that was originally from portage 1.8 or there abouts. > As long as you keep make.globals up to date, it should not be an > issue. Well mine isn't quite as old as yours, but is still fairly old now. I really have no problem interactively merging them, and it takes little time. However since the mini-crusade on it, I thought it to be a decent suggestion for perhaps a future version of baselayout? Maybe as Chris suggested for it, pop the complete make.conf.example into the stages, with a little note somewhere like "copy this to make.conf and uncomment as necessary, or if you're comfortable, create your own based on the available variables". To be honest, I haven't changed mine once it was set, except to merge in the new comments, and haven't excluded it simply to keep track of the changes, which I could just as easily do watching a diff roll by of a make.conf.example. Also, it's got easily twice the config areas of lilo, and y'all provide an example for that. Either way, I don't really feel strongly enough about it, it was just an idea I had to make peace in both camps so we could get on to bickering about something new:) -- Chuck Brewer Registered Linux User #284015 Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.