Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:16:38 -0300 (EST) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: dillon@backplane.com (Matthew Dillon) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, dima@best.net, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc make.conf Message-ID: <199808271316.KAA25306@roma.coe.ufrj.br> In-Reply-To: <199808270459.VAA10971@apollo.backplane.com> from Matthew Dillon at "Aug 26, 98 09:59:03 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
#define quoting(Matthew Dillon)
// :>> > rc.conf.local capability. Eases large-site administration.
// :>>
// :>> Bogus. make.conf is already entirely local. It is the local extension
// :>> of <sys.mk>.
// :>
// :>It actually depends. If we consider /etc/{daily,weekly,monthly,rc.conf}
// :>etc etc etc being local, then what's the point of having their .local
// :>extensions?
// :
// :None :-). Don't consider them as local, since they do a lot by default.
// :make.conf OTOH contains only commented out defaults.
// :
// :Bruce
//
// commented out defaults, but it's still 6 KBytes worth of
// critical information that needs to get updated on every
// system update. If you don't want a make.conf.local
// then the supplied make.conf needs to be an empty file with
// some other file containing a list of all the features.
// Otherwise we have to update make.conf on every install.
What about a man page ???
I've been updating my make.conf since I started using FreeBSD and
see it as a "feature" of progress. :)
Using make.conf.local would not add any real facility, IMO.
I agree with those who think make.conf is ALREADY local.
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?199808271316.KAA25306>