Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :> sent to the CVS meisters to get /usr/src/etc/make.conf moved.
> :>
> :> make will dump out with an appropriate error and instructions if you
> :> update your source tree and still have an /etc/make.conf.local.
> :
> : I like this change (kind of) but is it really necessary to cause make
> :to exit if there is a make.conf.local? Why not have it read all 3? One
> :of the things we talked about at the 'Con was that a three tiered system
> :works well for rc.conf when you have a lot of machines sharing similar
> :configuration details, but with some unique elements present on each
> :machine. Perhaps I'm missing something, but how can make.conf.local be a
> :bad thing?
> :
> :Doug
>
> I think it is necessary to make it exit for now, because what we are
> really doing is a net-0 gain in files... turning what used to be
> functionality in /etc/make.conf.local into /etc/make.conf. The intent is
> not to add a third file. If the intent were to add a third configuration
> file then, sure, we could allow all three. But that isn't my intent.
Ok, well put me on record as wanting three files. While I still have
some reservations about the whole /etc/defaults thing, I believe that if
we are going to use it we should use it to full advantage, offering
people more functionality, not less. Unless I am missing something, the
worst thing that could happen if someone had all three files is that the
settings they want will get read from /etc/make.conf.local. The only
time this causes a problem is if you change a default setting for
something that was in the "old" make.conf file (evil), or change the
name of a define in /etc/defaults/make.conf (_really_ evil).
I'm a little behind in my freebsd mail, so forgive me if this has been
covered. If not, I hope this will spark some conversation.
Thanks,
Doug
--
"Stop it, I'm gettin' misty."
- Mel Gibson as Porter, "Payback"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
