| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:59:24 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file |
| 7 |
>>>> just grew my a huge amount. |
| 8 |
>>> You package.use has grown by one filesystem block at most, how much |
| 9 |
>>> extra disk space and CPU cycles would you use by compiling 32 bit |
| 10 |
>>> options for every package that has them? |
| 11 |
>> I wasn't worried about disk space, just that I rarely use entries in |
| 12 |
>> that file. Heck, it's enough to manage the other package.* files |
| 13 |
>> already. |
| 14 |
> I wonder if it may have been better to update the multilib profiles to |
| 15 |
> set the flag globally be default, it would make life easier and you could |
| 16 |
> still turn it off if you wanted to. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I was wondering the same thing but I guess they have some reason for |
| 19 |
doing it this way, that we don't know about it would seem. ;-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
>>> If you use a single file for package.use, it does make it far more |
| 22 |
>>> cumbersome to manage, but that's why I switched to separate files many |
| 23 |
>>> years ago. |
| 24 |
>> I've tried separate files and having them all in one file. Either way, |
| 25 |
>> each entry requires a person to manage it. For me at least, it's six of |
| 26 |
>> one and half a dozen of the other. ;-) |
| 27 |
> Actually, it's one big one vs six small ones :) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings for |
| 30 |
> each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed - for |
| 31 |
> example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to |
| 32 |
> comment every entry in the file so I know why I put it there and whether |
| 33 |
> I still needed it. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
What I ran into, I'd update say KDE. It would need some packages added |
| 38 |
to the keyword file. Some may not be KDE but packages that KDE depends |
| 39 |
on. Well, should those that are KDE go into the KDE file and the ones |
| 40 |
that are dependencies but not KDE go into a file of its own or what? If |
| 41 |
I split it, how do I keep up with it? If I don't split it, then I have |
| 42 |
a larger file to deal with. After running in circles with that for a |
| 43 |
while, I just went with one file and hoped for the best. lol |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Dale |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
:-) :-) |
Archives