On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 13:02 +0100, Stroller wrote: > On 23 June 2011, at 22:57, Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> ... I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single > >> files. I find it easier. > > > > That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo > > requires libbar with USE="snafu", I put it in/etc/portage/package.use/foo > > Then if I remove foo, I remove the use file. If they were alphabetically > > sorted, and therefore separate, in one file, I wouldn't make the > > connection. > > Mine isn't sorted, but it's only 20 items or so and it's grouped into > "categories" of related programs. A few months ago I cleared out entries for > a few programs that I no longer use - I would guess I will notice to do so > again in another year or so. > > Any packages which are listed because they're dependencies of something else, > I add that as a # comment at the beginning of the line. > > I like the idea of package.use as a directory of indie files, but haven't > bothered switching over because this works so well for me. The package.use > directory system seems too simple to be true - is it really no more complex > than a directory of any-named files of the same format? > > Stroller. > >
Yes, its just directories ... but I switched one system over to it and ran for a year or so in parallel with systems that are original - I am going to switch back as its teeing me off big time. "Sounded a good idea" - sucks in practise, making management more time consuming and harder than it needed to be for absolutely no gain. Think of it this way, do you want to manage one keyword file or dozens. The heirarchal idea sounds good, but its just more work, more letters to type, more files to search for packages, etc. On a small, heavily managed server it might work, but ... BillK -- William Kenworthy <bi...@iinet.net.au> Home in Perth!
