| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Dang. I had to add about 90 packages to my package.use and some more to |
| 5 |
>> the keyword file. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file just |
| 8 |
>> grew my a huge amount. |
| 9 |
> You package.use has grown by one filesystem block at most, how much extra |
| 10 |
> disk space and CPU cycles would you use by compiling 32 bit options for |
| 11 |
> every package that has them? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I wasn't worried about disk space, just that I rarely use entries in |
| 15 |
that file. Heck, it's enough to manage the other package.* files already. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If you use a single file for package.use, it does make it far more |
| 20 |
> cumbersome to manage, but that's why I switched to separate files many |
| 21 |
> years ago. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I've tried separate files and having them all in one file. Either way, |
| 26 |
each entry requires a person to manage it. For me at least, it's six of |
| 27 |
one and half a dozen of the other. ;-) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dale |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
:-) :-) |
Archives