Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Do we have to build gcc with fortran now?

[Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org>]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:57:16 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:27:53 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > So is giving the files sensible names :)
> > > 
> > > That was what I liked about autounmask, the tree version not the
> > > portage one.  It gave them some names at least.  Still felt like
> > > looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes tho.
> > 
> > I'm with you, Dale. I have no /etc/portage/package.* directories here
> > on this amd64 box - 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.

An occasional use of eix-test-obsolete does well enough for me. I ran it 
just now after several months, and it found one redundant entry in 
package.keywords (for libreoffice).

> And I don't have to worry about sorting package.use every time I make a
> change, ls does that for me.

I don't sort it; I put entries in in the right order to start with. An 
occasional entry put there by autounmask is demarcated anyway, so they're 
easy to see, and to delete when no longer needed.

It works well for me, but we all have different foibles.

-- 
Rgds
Peter