:
:At 9:10 AM -0800 11/2/99, Doug Barton wrote:
:>Matthew Dillon wrote:
:> > 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.
:>
:> Ok, well put me on record as wanting three files.
:
:Sounds like it would be fine to have three files, you just shouldn't
:use /etc/make.conf.local as the name of that third file. Your site's
:own /etc/make.conf (with "local to your site" changes) could include
:logic to pick up "machine-specific" settings via some other filename.
:Maybe /etc/make.conf.hostname, or /etc/hostdefs/make.conf
:
:I'm not quite sure what filename is best, I'm just saying that you
:should be able to get the flexibility you want even though we "choke"
:on /etc/make.conf.local (just to catch those people who don't realize
:these first two files have been moved around)
:
:---
:Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, precisely.
What I do for site distribution is have a /conf directory hierarchy.
The machine autoconfigures itself by any number of means to determine
which subdirectory to use and creates a softlink /conf/ME which points
to the subdirectory, /conf/<hostname-or-whatever>.
All the major files in /etc then become softlinks to /conf/ME/<filename>.
For make.conf, a three-file version would have /etc/defaults/make.conf,
/etc/make.conf which contains the installation-wide parameters, and
it would include /conf/ME/make.conf for the platform-specific parameters.
And there you have it...
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
