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 21:30:50
Message-Id: 201106232227.54084.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now? by Dale
1 On Wednesday 22 June 2011 18:46:55 Dale wrote:
2 > Neil Bothwick wrote:
3 > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:54:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
4 > >>>> Use a directory for package.use, it makes it far easier to
5 > >>>> manage. All of /etc/portage/package.* are directories here.
6 > >>>
7 > >>> I have done that for package.keywords and unmask. In ways it is
8 > >>> easier but in ways, it is a nightmare. If something is unmasked, I
9 > >>> have to go find the file that unmasked it. I have several since I
10 > >>> use autounmask for most of it. Then add in that the new autounmask
11 > >>> part of emerge seems to pick a random file to add too. At that
12 > >>> point, not much makes sense anymore.
13 > >>
14 > >> grep is your very very good friend
15
16 Hear, hear!
17
18 > > So is giving the files sensible names :)
19 >
20 > That was what I liked about autounmask, the tree version not the portage
21 > one. It gave them some names at least. Still felt like looking for a
22 > needle in a haystack sometimes tho.
23
24 I'm with you, Dale. I have no /etc/portage/package.* directories here on
25 this amd64 box - I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single files. I
26 find it easier.
27
28 I've also found it much easier to manage flags etc by setting the kde profile
29 (this being a kde box, of course - gnome is too arrogant for me). It makes
30 for a nice, simple USE line in make.conf.
31
32 --
33 Rgds
34 Peter

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now? Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>