On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:45:40 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:

> > if binary packages were built and stored in some reasonable
> > location then I could probably prune out things that I'm not
> > worried about,  

They are stored wherever you tell portage to store them.

> But then, one day, you'll see that you've pruned something you 
> shouldn't have, something that one of the things you did keep needs 
> as a dependency.  Better keep everything.  Disks are gigantic these 
> days, surely you can spare a gigabyte or two for binary packages.

du /mnt/portage/packages/
5.5G    /mnt/portage/packages/
5.5G    total

That's for five machines, each having a separate package store. The last
clean up was two weeks ago, but all the machines run ~arch, so there's
already a lot of superceded packages in there. Your estimate of space
requirements seems spot on for a single machine :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345!