On 2015-04-02, Róbert Čerňanský <ope...@tightmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:41:10 +0100
> Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:21:01 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
>>
>> > Besides there is such database now - it is your (abused)
>> > package.use! You have to manually add entries to it and I do not
>> > know any database slower than human typing to a text file ;-)
>> > (There is autounmask option of course but then you allow portage to
>> > mess with your files which is not a good thing.)
>>
>> Portage doesn't change your package.use file, it creates a new one
>> using the standard CONFIG_PROTECT process. Then you use etc-update or
>> similar to view and verify the changes.
>
> What I am trying to tell is that portage manages its stuff (USE
> dependencies), through you, in your configuration files. It is nice
> that it does not overwrite them directly without asking ;-) but in the
> end the content ends up there one way or other. Portage should have
> its own internal database for USE deps and manage it like it manages db
> of standard package dependencies.
I prefer it this way. I do not want all the nice easy-to read/edit
configuration stuff in /etc/portage encrypted some Windows Registry
break-alike.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Were these parsnips
at CORRECTLY MARINATED in
gmail.com TACO SAUCE?
