| 1 |
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:34:57 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> posted 456DB725.9040402@g.o, |
| 5 |
> excerpted below, on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Vlastimil Babka wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Duncan wrote: |
| 10 |
> >>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a |
| 11 |
> >>> /human/ know it's not needed. |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit |
| 14 |
> >> /var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there was |
| 15 |
> >> arts flag removed and you know the ebuild didn't actually need/use it, |
| 16 |
> >> remove it from IUSE, and possibly USE) and --newuse won't trigger no |
| 17 |
> >> more. It's a bit of hack, but works, for user it's the same amount of |
| 18 |
> >> work as editing some newuse.mask file, for portage developers it's no |
| 19 |
> >> work :) |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> > oi, don't recommend people edit the vdb *cringes* |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> LOL. Such a hack didn't occur to me, probably for just that reason (tho |
| 24 |
> like many hacks, it might prove useful at times, for personal use |
| 25 |
> only with an appropriate pre-hack backup of course). It occurs to me that |
| 26 |
> portage devs may prefer the bit of work to "no work", but having to deal |
| 27 |
> with the consequential bug biteback should this recommendation enter |
| 28 |
> common usage. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Well, I definitely prefer people doing it manually than adding an emerge option to do exactly that (as was already suggested a while ago), that leaves at least the hope that they know what they're doing. But I guess making --newuse somewhat configurable wouldn't hurt (too many people annoyed with it recently). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Marius |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives