From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 2 9:10:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dt050n71.san.rr.com (dt054n7c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.124]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B83414BC9 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:10:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (master [10.0.0.2]) by dt050n71.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA00858; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:10:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <381F1B08.AF4E0585@gorean.org> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:10:32 -0800 From: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT-0927 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: minor heads up - /etc/make.conf{,.local} being moved References: <199910271928.MAA35915@apollo.backplane.com> <381F1722.3F85DA1@simplenet.com> <199911021703.JAA51793@apollo.backplane.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message