Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:47:12 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Studded <Studded@dal.net> Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make.conf Message-ID: <2367.904524432@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:53:12 PDT." <35E99F98.412A0513@dal.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I like this idea, *if* the file is split, however creating 3 new files > in 3 new locations all with the same name seems like unnecessary > confusication to me. How about src.conf.mk, ports.conf.mk and > sys.conf.mk? Doesn't seem like confusion to me - they all live in completely different (and quite descriptive :) locations. Moreover, it gives you a single target to look for when encountering a collection like src or ports - does it have a conf.mk file? Look in there for user-tunable config variables then. It doesn't? Then you quickly know there are none. :-) - Jordan > > Doug > > > If /etc/make.conf is split at all then it should be split into: > > > > /usr/src/conf.mk - configuration frobs exclusively for /usr/src > > > > /usr/ports/conf.mk - configuration frobs exclusively for /usr/ports. > > > > /usr/share/mk/conf.mk - stuff truly global to any invocation of Bmake > > e.g. variables you want both src and ports > > (and so on) to get as a base set before > > potentially laying their own on top.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2367.904524432>