Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:54:17 -0300 (EST) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: Studded@dal.net, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make.conf Message-ID: <199808310254.XAA05996@roma.coe.ufrj.br> In-Reply-To: <2367.904524432@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Aug 30, 98 05:47:12 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
#define quoting(Jordan K. Hubbard) // > 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. :-) What do we do in read-only source trees ? // > > 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. Jonny -- Joao Carlos Mendes Luis M.Sc. Student jonny@jonny.eng.br Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and Unix. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808310254.XAA05996>