From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Qunja-000214-0n for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:45:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 250FD21C071; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7610221C287 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:43:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so3636433wyg.40 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:43:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=93cBuoWJvvaAxtbCka2FGbEgvw+YBWHyJsaOHb7T6hI=; b=arlETKFUDkON/0AxAIuRNufqf2CJ/Ni3WUHxW8jTCXqLHCmAnHWD1ejmxNsvpsOTm2 AAYLO3e9o6x4Gnghognog8OqdOdGZj6NyLo6mpM7dAFW2bKvNHuSNc28nx9NlswHSctw PnQcu1zVnpEasxiQPhRhnpA6EDeAFOcisMBgo= Received: by 10.227.199.207 with SMTP id et15mr490672wbb.56.1313854998655; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-153-55.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.153.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fh17sm3419195wbb.37.2011.08.20.08.43.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:43:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] stage3.1 USE flags, okay to 'ignore' differences? Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:43:04 +0200 Message-ID: <2857014.TypM99uMn3@nazgul> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.0 (Linux/2.6.39-ck-r2; KDE/4.7.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: f10ca2f84c51b9ad9655d9be520cc2f4 On Sat 20 August 2011 22:13:07 Pandu Poluan did opine thusly: > I hope someone can shed me some light here. > > I keep finding myself doing time-consuming emerges for my Gentoo > (virtual) systems (e.g., gcc-4.5.3, glibc-2.13, emerge -e, and so > on). So, I found myself wanting to build a so-called 'stage3.1' > tarball (i.e., a stage3 tarball *plus* the things I did all this > time). > > Now, my systems have different USE flags, depending on its usage. So > my question is: > > Can I just disregard the differences in USE flags for my stage3.1 > (e.g., just use the most-minimal amount of USE flags) and do an > emerge -avuND @system @world for every system having a different > set of USE flag? Or should I make one stage3.1 tarball for each USE > flag combination? Either way works. All you have here is a classic case of finding the sweet spot that is maximum commonality and minimum hassle to tweak it. Only you can define where that sweet spot is, as the answer relies on things like how much resources you have to re-compile, the number of re-emerging to be done, and how little (or much) tolerance you have. To get a real answer you'd have to give full details on your new tarball, USE flags, and how the actual machines using them differ. Then describe the impact of those changes and which bits you are happy with. I then doubt many people would bother reading and responding :-) Personally, I consider anything that needs glibc, gcc and the bulk of @system to be rebuild to be a PITA and I'd be making different tarballs for those once. But if the list of remerges is say 30 perl packages then I wouldn't bother and just stick with one tarball as that update is about 4 minutes worth of time. But that's just me. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com