Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××××.org>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:11:07
Message-Id: 201106240004.15416.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now? by Neil Bothwick
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