Suggestions for segmentation of make.conf and make.globals

[38282]

Hi all,

A few suggestions for making the segmentation of make.conf and make.globals clearer for end-users in the most excellent Gentoo ports implementation:

It is a bit of a paradox for me that make.globals is there in /etc, if it is never to be touched, as so clearly stated. (Of course there are those, like developers who probably Know What They Are Doing (tm). So ...

When a new portage emerge is installed:
* Install make.globals with permissions 444 in the future (in addition to the neon "don't edit messages"), and assume that it is never changed so that it can simply be overwritten after a backup copy is stored in A Safe Place (tm) upon installation of a new version.
* Alternatively, install make.globals in A Safe Place (tm), along with above protections, but well out of sight.
* Alternatively, install it as a packed binary file, to enforce the assumption that it is never changed, with a tool to pack a changed version for those who Know What They Are Doing (tm).

Then:
* Either automate inclusion of the user-defined variables in the existing /etc/make.conf into a new feature-enhanced version of make.conf, so that users don't need to muck around with the ._cfg*.make.conf file, or
* Alternatively, create a unified diff that can be read by the user and thereafter applied with a standard command.

These suggestions are in reference to what seems like, after the last few days of fine portage improvements, will be a routine administrative task (or burden, all depending on your disposition) in the future as portage is further developed.

I certainly see the wisdom in the present approach (e.g., it's user active, it's consistant throughout the distribution, etc), but I also think that a distribution has the right to declare policy for its central features, as so many do, particularly for end-user ease of use, as long as the policy and the consequences of violation are absolutly clear to users at all experience levels.

I'd appreciate hearing the comments of others on this!

/Paul

[pjp]

With portage 2.0.42, head and tail show that this shouldn't be a problem.