| 1 |
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:04:08 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I remember someone (Dale?) some time ago being dismayed at the large |
| 4 |
> number of packages that would be installed by emerge @system. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Now I see what he meant: on this box 401 of the 1103 installed |
| 7 |
> packages. I'd like to construct a set that would create a reliable |
| 8 |
> basis for building the rest of @system and @world. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I have a small rescue system on the same disk, also ~amd64, which |
| 11 |
> doesn't have X or any desktop programs but otherwise is configured for |
| 12 |
> the same setup. Would it be sensible to use the 44 packages in that |
| 13 |
> @system as a new set @sysbase on the main system, or would I miss |
| 14 |
> something important? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Surely the addition of X, and maybe kde or gnome, to your USE flags is |
| 17 |
what is causing so many packages to be pulled in by @system. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I found something similar when building a new system recently, @system |
| 20 |
pulled in X and a shedload of dependencies. Switching to a non-desktop |
| 21 |
profile meant far fewer packages were needed to get a basic system. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Walk softly and carry a fully charged phazer. |
Archives