Understanding make.conf - An Introduction

Anything that pertains to Portage

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Understanding make.conf - An Introduction

Postby valczir » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:31

wolfden wrote:it's just an example make.conf


Yes, but I know many people who would just copy an "example" file and use it as their actual file. I used to be one of those types of people. Especially when it came to my .emacs file. But now I've built my own one of those, too.

Anyway, I'm just saying, newbies often will look at a file and say, "Hey, that one looks good" and then copy it to use as their own. Or even copy parts of it that they're not sure about (I still do that with my .emacs file) and add it to the one they've built. In such a case, I think it's a good idea to have a relatively conservative make.conf.
valczir
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:24
Location: Minnesota

Re: Understanding make.conf - An Introduction

Postby Stupot » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:28

If somebody just up and grabs his make.conf after the explanation given, then they are going to have big problems, no matter what file wolfden put up as an example. The whole point of this thread was to learn how to customize make.conf for your own personal machine. There's no good example that exists where anybody could just up and copy the sample make.conf without most likely running into problems.
Stupot
Sagely Hen
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:44
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA

Re: Understanding make.conf - An Introduction

Postby valczir » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:37

Stupot wrote:If somebody just up and grabs his make.conf after the explanation given, then they are going to have big problems, no matter what file wolfden put up as an example. The whole point of this thread was to learn how to customize make.conf for your own personal machine. There's no good example that exists where anybody could just up and copy the sample make.conf without most likely running into problems.


[edit]
You're assuming that they read the explanation - many people look at the example first, then skim the explanation. Very few people are willing to read anything longer than a sentence, these days. Anyway, back to my non-edited portion of my post:
[/edit]

Of course there's no good example for that situation, but there are better examples. Many of them.

The point of an example is to give the people looking at it an idea of what a good <exampled_item> might look like. The file posted is a ricer make.conf - something to be avoided at all costs, especially for the newbie to portage.

Let me try to put it in non-make.conf terms: You're writing a recipe for other people to follow for ... iunno, some food item. Krumkake, we'll say, just because I really like krumkake. You describe in detail how to mix the ingredients, what temperature to set the krumkake griddle-type-thing to, how long to cook it before taking it out and rolling it up, etc. Then, as an example, you show images of the process, but your dough is thick and ends up making pancake-thick krumkake things which crack as you roll them into cones. On top of that, they're burnt on the outside and not cooked on the inside.

Your recipe may very well result in something great, but your examples are horrible. This will result in two separate reactions in two types of people: For the person who knows what krumkake should look like, the examples prove that you know absolutely nothing about krumkake, so your recipe will be completely ignored. For the person who's never had krumkake before but is trying to make some for the first time, your recipe will result in something that looks nothing like your examples - so the newbie will get confused and try to modify the recipe so that their krumkake comes out looking like the ... crap ... in your example.

A ricer make.conf such as the example given acts in much the same way - experienced gentoo users will ignore your post, thinking that you actually support the use of eXtreme CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, and newbies will try to model their make.conf after the example, because they assume that the example is the Right Way(tm) to do it. The result being that advanced users won't bother to read your post and new users will be turned off quickly due to the large files, breakage, and slower performance gleaned by using such CFLAGS and LDFLAGS.

What you do on your own computer is your own business, but an example should be sane. This particular example may not be worthy of the Ricer of the Year award, but it *is* rice enough that I, personally, would never trust any advice given in the original post.
valczir
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:24
Location: Minnesota

Re: Understanding make.conf - An Introduction

Postby Circuitsoft » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:54

I never knew anyone else around me knew what Krumkake was!

Re: CFLAGS, I agree completely with valczir.

I generally have no special LDFLAGS, and just have "-march=my_cpu -O2" in my CFLAGS. (Well, my server is a little more complicated, only because gcc doesn't recognize my processor in -march)
Circuitsoft
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:45

Re: Understanding make.conf - An Introduction

Postby wolfden » Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:34

valczir wrote:
Stupot wrote:If somebody just up and grabs his make.conf after the explanation given, then they are going to have big problems, no matter what file wolfden put up as an example. The whole point of this thread was to learn how to customize make.conf for your own personal machine. There's no good example that exists where anybody could just up and copy the sample make.conf without most likely running into problems.


[edit]
You're assuming that they read the explanation - many people look at the example first, then skim the explanation. Very few people are willing to read anything longer than a sentence, these days. Anyway, back to my non-edited portion of my post:
[/edit]

Of course there's no good example for that situation, but there are better examples. Many of them.

The point of an example is to give the people looking at it an idea of what a good <exampled_item> might look like. The file posted is a ricer make.conf - something to be avoided at all costs, especially for the newbie to portage.

Let me try to put it in non-make.conf terms: You're writing a recipe for other people to follow for ... iunno, some food item. Krumkake, we'll say, just because I really like krumkake. You describe in detail how to mix the ingredients, what temperature to set the krumkake griddle-type-thing to, how long to cook it before taking it out and rolling it up, etc. Then, as an example, you show images of the process, but your dough is thick and ends up making pancake-thick krumkake things which crack as you roll them into cones. On top of that, they're burnt on the outside and not cooked on the inside.

Your recipe may very well result in something great, but your examples are horrible. This will result in two separate reactions in two types of people: For the person who knows what krumkake should look like, the examples prove that you know absolutely nothing about krumkake, so your recipe will be completely ignored. For the person who's never had krumkake before but is trying to make some for the first time, your recipe will result in something that looks nothing like your examples - so the newbie will get confused and try to modify the recipe so that their krumkake comes out looking like the ... crap ... in your example.

A ricer make.conf such as the example given acts in much the same way - experienced gentoo users will ignore your post, thinking that you actually support the use of eXtreme CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, and newbies will try to model their make.conf after the example, because they assume that the example is the Right Way(tm) to do it. The result being that advanced users won't bother to read your post and new users will be turned off quickly due to the large files, breakage, and slower performance gleaned by using such CFLAGS and LDFLAGS.

What you do on your own computer is your own business, but an example should be sane. This particular example may not be worthy of the Ricer of the Year award, but it *is* rice enough that I, personally, would never trust any advice given in the original post.


Your assuming too much and this thread isn't designed for this conversation. If newbs don't want to read and copy/ paste, fine with me. No matter what make.conf they use, they are heading for disaster with their system if they don't read and learn about config files, but it's hard to learn if there is nothing to go on in the first place. The thread wasn't about using the config file, it was for learning the config file, big difference.
wolfden
Sharecropper
 
Posts: 9050
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 0:55
Location: Midwest USA

Re: Understanding make.conf - An Introduction

Postby albfneto » Tue Mar 03, 2009 14:31

Wolfden, is a very useful and easy to understand tutorial.
interesting for people that workink on Gentoo and Gentoo based distros.
congratulations
ALBERTO FEDERMAN NETO
albfneto
albfneto@fcfrp.usp.br
Favorite Distros: Sabayon, Gentoo, Mageia and OpenSUSE
User avatar
albfneto
Sagely Hen
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:15
Location: Ribeirão Preto City, São Paulo State, Brazil

Previous

Return to Portage|Emerge Package Managers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest