Archives
Archives
| From: | Ruben Vandille <mailinglists@××××××××.be> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-server@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-server] Re: Re: requirements for a more stable portage tree | ||
| Date: | Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:26:32 | ||
| Message-Id: | 1077582395.7957.4.camel@localhost | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-server] Re: Re: requirements for a more stable portage tree by Jerry McBride |
||
| 1 | On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 04:46, Jerry McBride wrote: |
| 2 | > > There are some plusses to having the database backend: Centralized tree, |
| 3 | > > and fast queries. Downside: Extra complexity, and how often do you need |
| 4 | > > to query the tree anyway? |
| 5 | > > |
| 6 | > |
| 7 | > I like Linux and I love Gentoo's wide selection of applications. I'm |
| 8 | > constantly poking around the portage tree... :') |
| 9 | |
| 10 | emerge esearch |
| 11 | and run "eupdatedb" after you've synced |
| 12 | |
| 13 | It's not THE solution, but I like/use it verry much |
| 14 | |
| 15 | R. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| [gentoo-server] Re: Re: Re: requirements for a more stable portage tree | Jerry McBride <mcbrides9@×××××××.net> |