On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Jonathan Smith wrote:
> The reason against it is that it makes it harder to go through and
> configure a fresh system. As I had said, one of my favorite things
> was to have one file to go through and change what I needed to.
There are two approaches:
(1) Copy /etc/default
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Jonathan Smith wrote:
> I'm going to drop the discussion. You're busy telling me why your way is
> best for me, when I'm saying it's fine, but not for me. Rather than
> listening and offering ideas, you're telling me why you are right.
That's not what he was saying
>I, personally, have no need of /etc/defaults and typically disable it,
>anyway.
>
>Since the whole thing is environment variables, why not make /etc/rc.conf
>and /etc/make.conf _include_ the ones in /etc/defaults (first thing in the
>file) (if they exist, obviously)? At which point, those of us w
> My $0.02: I thinks it's a good idea for /etc/defaults/whatever to set the
> defaults and then load any customizations for /etc/whatever. Personally, I
> *like* having small /etc/whatever files with just my entries to worry about.
> And if we call defaults from the /etc copy, you have to first h
I, personally, have no need of /etc/defaults and typically disable it,
anyway.
Since the whole thing is environment variables, why not make /etc/rc.conf
and /etc/make.conf _include_ the ones in /etc/defaults (first thing in the
file) (if they exist, obviously)? At which point, those of us who do
