Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: This nite's switch to "full multilib"
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:40:21
Message-Id: mfjnnm$r9$2@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: This nite's switch to "full multilib" by "Róbert Čerňanský"
1 On 2015-04-02, Róbert Čerňanský <openhs@×××××××××.com> wrote:
2 > On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:41:10 +0100
3 > Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote:
4 >
5 >> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:21:01 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
6 >>
7 >> > Besides there is such database now - it is your (abused)
8 >> > package.use! You have to manually add entries to it and I do not
9 >> > know any database slower than human typing to a text file ;-)
10 >> > (There is autounmask option of course but then you allow portage to
11 >> > mess with your files which is not a good thing.)
12 >>
13 >> Portage doesn't change your package.use file, it creates a new one
14 >> using the standard CONFIG_PROTECT process. Then you use etc-update or
15 >> similar to view and verify the changes.
16 >
17 > What I am trying to tell is that portage manages its stuff (USE
18 > dependencies), through you, in your configuration files. It is nice
19 > that it does not overwrite them directly without asking ;-) but in the
20 > end the content ends up there one way or other. Portage should have
21 > its own internal database for USE deps and manage it like it manages db
22 > of standard package dependencies.
23
24 I prefer it this way. I do not want all the nice easy-to read/edit
25 configuration stuff in /etc/portage encrypted some Windows Registry
26 break-alike.
27
28 --
29 Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Were these parsnips
30 at CORRECTLY MARINATED in
31 gmail.com TACO SAUCE?

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: This nite's switch to "full multilib" Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-user] This nite's switch to "full multilib" Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk>