| 1 |
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:59:24 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> >> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file |
| 7 |
> >> just grew my a huge amount. |
| 8 |
> > You package.use has grown by one filesystem block at most, how much |
| 9 |
> > extra disk space and CPU cycles would you use by compiling 32 bit |
| 10 |
> > options for every package that has them? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I wasn't worried about disk space, just that I rarely use entries in |
| 13 |
> that file. Heck, it's enough to manage the other package.* files |
| 14 |
> already. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I wonder if it may have been better to update the multilib profiles to |
| 17 |
set the flag globally be default, it would make life easier and you could |
| 18 |
still turn it off if you wanted to. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > If you use a single file for package.use, it does make it far more |
| 21 |
> > cumbersome to manage, but that's why I switched to separate files many |
| 22 |
> > years ago. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I've tried separate files and having them all in one file. Either way, |
| 25 |
> each entry requires a person to manage it. For me at least, it's six of |
| 26 |
> one and half a dozen of the other. ;-) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Actually, it's one big one vs six small ones :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings for |
| 31 |
each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed - for |
| 32 |
example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to |
| 33 |
comment every entry in the file so I know why I put it there and whether |
| 34 |
I still needed it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success? |
Archives