Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: n952162 <n952162@×××.de>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo alternatives
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:24:53
Message-Id: d86ccdff-b7c0-eb5d-bc84-6d95c245d663@web.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo alternatives by Neil Bothwick
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?  ...

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo alternatives sh2d000w <sh2d000w@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo alternatives Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>