| 1 |
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:29:33 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Portage doesn't change your package.use file, it creates a new one |
| 4 |
> > using the standard CONFIG_PROTECT process. Then you use etc-update or |
| 5 |
> > similar to view and verify the changes. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> What I am trying to tell is that portage manages its stuff (USE |
| 8 |
> dependencies), through you, in your configuration files. It is nice |
| 9 |
> that it does not overwrite them directly without asking ;-) but in the |
| 10 |
> end the content ends up there one way or other. Portage should have |
| 11 |
> its own internal database for USE deps and manage it like it manages db |
| 12 |
> of standard package dependencies. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm coming round to that way of thinking too. I was simply pointing out |
| 15 |
that the autounmask feature doesn't clobber existing configs, so people |
| 16 |
weren't put off using it by the implication that it did. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
A mechanism for portage to manage this outside of /etc/portage would help |
| 19 |
separate portage's decisions and requirements from those of the user |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
X-Modem- A device on the losing end of an encounter with lightning. |
Archives