1 |
On 6/7/21 11:16 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:10:13 +0200, n952162 wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>> Yes, I know, there are binary versions, but if I wanted to use binary, |
5 |
>>> I wouldn't use gentoo. And anyway, there's always rust and gcc and |
6 |
>>> ... |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>> Okay, I guess I got it, at least for the worst offenders, firefox and |
10 |
>> thunderbird: not have them in my world file and every quarter update |
11 |
>> them manually. Would that work? |
12 |
> Not really, because you wouldn't get security updates. Also, because they |
13 |
> aren't in your world set, depclean would try to remove them and their |
14 |
> dependencies. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> A somewhat less clunky, but still far from perfect, option would be to |
17 |
> use package.mask to block updates beyond the current version. |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
Hmmm. That's interesting ... |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
> Using stable rather than testing, I don't know which you are currently |
25 |
> using, would reduce the number of updates significantly. This laptop runs |
26 |
> testing, but I have Chromium set to use stable to avoid the situation of |
27 |
> a rebuild completing just in time to start the next one :( |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
:-))) That's exactly what I have (almost) with stable. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
> |
34 |
> You could also look at using distcc if you have more than one machine to |
35 |
> spread the load. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
Ah, that's also interesting ... that's like an alternative to a local |
40 |
binary server (which I'm currently doing) - the compilations are |
41 |
distributed on all nodes in the network - and then, presumably are also |
42 |
available to all nodes? ... |