On 01/09/2015 12:21, Bill Kenworthy wrote: > On 01/09/15 16:10, Emanuele Rusconi wrote: >> On 1 September 2015 at 10:02, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote: >>> How many heads will explode? I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use >>> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I >>> set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook >>> wouldn't have to spend 14 hours building Seamonkey. The cross-compiler >>> *DEMANDS* a package.use directory. >>> >>> [d531][waltdnes][~] ll /etc/portage/package.use/ >>> total 24 >>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:05 . >>> drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:03 .. >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 41 Mar 25 00:04 cross---help >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 37 Mar 25 00:01 cross--p >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 274 May 4 12:07 cross-i686-pc-linux-gnu >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 585 Jul 30 17:05 package.use >>> >>> -- >>> Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> >>> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications >>> >> >> Yeah, crazy, right? I mean, a configuration file WITHIN a directory!! >> Woah, it's mind-boggling, dude!! >> >> -- Emanuele Rusconi >> > > Hey! - I am not the only one doing this then :) > > And it was also because of a cross-compiler. When I looked at how much > extra work this type fragmentation causes, and how little (or any!) > advantage it gives makes one wonder about the designers sanity ...
Switching from a single file to a directory of files is a needless PITA, because the file and the directory *have*the*same*name* <doh> So you must first move the file out of the way or rename it, then move it into the newly created directory. What ought to have happened, and the convention had long existed when this scheme for portage was thought up, is to call the directory /etc/portage/package.mask.d/ then you could easily have a main file and as many subsidiary files as you need/want. Just like how every other package seems to do it. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
