-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: > Don't think I have to reiterate the whole story of having arch specific > make.conf files and why that sucks, but just had an idea how to solve > the problem other than removing them completely: > Just move the arch specific crap (CHOST and CFLAGS) to a separate file, > and reintegrate it at install time. So make.conf.x86 in svn would only > contain CHOST/CFLAGS and related comments while make.conf (which > currently is only a fallback) contains the portage relevant parts, and > the ebuild just concatenates them in src_compile to create a single > arch specific make.conf.example.
That seems a lot better than the current situation. > First I also considerd using the "source" instruction instead of > reintegrating the files, but that doesn't really work for an example > file that's mainly intended to be read by the user. > > Of course removing the arch specific files completely and only have > the fallback make.conf is still an option, but would need a discussion > with releng and the docs team probably. Perhaps it's better to maintain such arch specific information somewhere else such as the handbook. It'd be nice to keep the docs included with portage as arch independent as possible. > Any objections against doing this for the next releases? I'd like to do this (at least the first option) for the next release. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEH52w/ejvha5XGaMRAnM6AJ9fTcydIqjkuXcrr1lllIcYd+unUQCgt0jJ B9xus7XtBMo1bRwWYpu4hC0= =IPBf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
