1 |
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:57:16 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:27:53 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
3 |
> > > > So is giving the files sensible names :) |
4 |
> > > |
5 |
> > > That was what I liked about autounmask, the tree version not the |
6 |
> > > portage one. It gave them some names at least. Still felt like |
7 |
> > > looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes tho. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > I'm with you, Dale. I have no /etc/portage/package.* directories here |
10 |
> > on this amd64 box - I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single |
11 |
> > files. I find it easier. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo |
14 |
> requires libbar with USE="snafu", I put it in/etc/portage/package.use/foo |
15 |
> Then if I remove foo, I remove the use file. If they were alphabetically |
16 |
> sorted, and therefore separate, in one file, I wouldn't make the |
17 |
> connection. |
18 |
|
19 |
An occasional use of eix-test-obsolete does well enough for me. I ran it |
20 |
just now after several months, and it found one redundant entry in |
21 |
package.keywords (for libreoffice). |
22 |
|
23 |
> And I don't have to worry about sorting package.use every time I make a |
24 |
> change, ls does that for me. |
25 |
|
26 |
I don't sort it; I put entries in in the right order to start with. An |
27 |
occasional entry put there by autounmask is demarcated anyway, so they're |
28 |
easy to see, and to delete when no longer needed. |
29 |
|
30 |
It works well for me, but we all have different foibles. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Rgds |
34 |
Peter |