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? |