[gentoo-user] Advantages or disadvantages of use package.use as directory

[gentoo-user] Advantages or disadvantages of use package.use as directory

[Harry Putnam]

I see there have been a change in how we list our specific use flags.

I'm seeing /etc/portage/package.use/ pkg1 pkg2 ... etc rather than
package.use as a file that contains the specific pkgs and use flags.

I wonder if there is some advantage to leaving things as my
installation has created them or should I revert to the old way where
package.use is file... not a directory.

If directory is better then how would I list USE flags for emacs-vcs?

Just create a file `/etc/portage/package.use/emacs-vcs' with USE flags
Or do I need to create another direrctorry within like:
   /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs?

I tried the later like so:
   /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs
where emacs-vcs contains:

   emacs-vcs Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars

and this way:

   >=app-editors/emacs-vcs-25.0.50_pre20150731 Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars

But when I attempt emerging... the USE flags do not reflect those
choices and shows and error:

--- Invalid atom in /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs:
    >=app-editors/emacs-vcs

So what is the correct format?

Re: [gentoo-user] Advantages or disadvantages of use package.use as directory

[Alan McKinnon]

On 30/08/2015 18:15, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I see there have been a change in how we list our specific use flags.

It's been around for 5+ years or so

> I'm seeing /etc/portage/package.use/ pkg1 pkg2 ... etc rather than
> package.use as a file that contains the specific pkgs and use flags.
> 
> I wonder if there is some advantage to leaving things as my
> installation has created them or should I revert to the old way where
> package.use is file... not a directory.

It's the same advantage as having /etc/*.d directories:

- package managers can add/remove/change single files without having to
grep/sed/awk everything in one file (unreliably)
- tools like autounmask will work, whereas before they were hit and go
- if you name the files after specific packages or categories you can
see at a glance where you've made changes

> If directory is better then how would I list USE flags for emacs-vcs?

/etc/portage/package.use/and-valid-filename-you-feel-like-using

> 
> Just create a file `/etc/portage/package.use/emacs-vcs' with USE flags

yes

> Or do I need to create another direrctorry within like:
>    /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs?

no

> 
> I tried the later like so:
>    /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs
> where emacs-vcs contains:
> 
>    emacs-vcs Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars
> 
> and this way:
> 
>    >=app-editors/emacs-vcs-25.0.50_pre20150731 Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars
> 
> But when I attempt emerging... the USE flags do not reflect those
> choices and shows and error:
> 
> --- Invalid atom in /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs:
>     >=app-editors/emacs-vcs
> 
> So what is the correct format?


Both your above are completely wrong. The docs clearly and unambiguously
say the exact format inside the file is identical whether you use a
package.use file, or any old arb filename you want inside a package.use/
directory

You have not done this, you have let your confused brain override what
your eyes can clearly see, and have invented something new to do that is
not in the docs. Tut, tut.

Read the docs again and do what they say.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Advantages or disadvantages of use package.use as directory

[wraeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1675 bytes --]

I'd already typed up this response when I saw the one from Alan come
in; figured I'd send it anyway - two responses that essentially agree
are better than one, right?

On 08/31/2015 02:15 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I see there have been a change in how we list our specific use
> flags.
> 
> I'm seeing /etc/portage/package.use/ pkg1 pkg2 ... etc rather than 
> package.use as a file that contains the specific pkgs and use
> flags.

I'm not certain when it was introduced, but this has been around for a
few years now.

> I wonder if there is some advantage to leaving things as my 
> installation has created them or should I revert to the old way
> where package.use is file... not a directory.

There's no specific advantage to using separate files within a
directory to using a single monolithic file other than manageability
and some utilities, as far as I'm aware.

> If directory is better then how would I list USE flags for
> emacs-vcs? <snip> So what is the correct format?

Create a file within the package.use directory, named whatever seems
reasonable to you, and put the contents:

app-editors/emacs-vcs Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars

Enter a single package atom followed by any use flag changes - flag
name to enable, minus flag name to disable. In case the above example
wrapped, keep the package atom and the flags on a single line.

As far as I'm aware, you can't nest files within subdirectories of
package.use, and the man page doesn't mention version ranges - it's
example is an exact atom (=) and wildcards (see portage(5) man page).

--
wraeth <wraeth@wraeth.id.au>
GnuPG Key: B2D9F759


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Advantages or disadvantages of use package.use as directory

[Harry Putnam]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

>> I tried the later like so:
>>    /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs
>> where emacs-vcs contains:
>> 
>>    emacs-vcs Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars
>> 
>> and this way:
>> 
>>    >=app-editors/emacs-vcs-25.0.50_pre20150731 Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars
>> 
>> But when I attempt emerging... the USE flags do not reflect those
>> choices and shows and error:
>> 
>> --- Invalid atom in /etc/portage/package.use/app-editors/emacs-vcs:
>>     >=app-editors/emacs-vcs
>> 
>> So what is the correct format?
>
>
> Both your above are completely wrong. The docs clearly and unambiguously
> say the exact format inside the file is identical whether you use a
> package.use file, or any old arb filename you want inside a package.use/
> directory
>
> You have not done this, you have let your confused brain override what
> your eyes can clearly see, and have invented something new to do that is
> not in the docs. Tut, tut.

> Read the docs again and do what they say.

Yes indeed... thanks


wraeth <wraeth@wraeth.id.au> writes:

> I'd already typed up this response when I saw the one from Alan come
> in; figured I'd send it anyway - two responses that essentially agree
> are better than one, right?

[...]

> Create a file within the package.use directory, named whatever seems
> reasonable to you, and put the contents:
>
> app-editors/emacs-vcs Xaw3d athena gnutls imagemagick toolkit-scroll-bars
>
> Enter a single package atom followed by any use flag changes - flag
> name to enable, minus flag name to disable. In case the above example
> wrapped, keep the package atom and the flags on a single line.
>
> As far as I'm aware, you can't nest files within subdirectories of
> package.use, and the man page doesn't mention version ranges - it's
> example is an exact atom (=) and wildcards (see portage(5) man page).

Very helpful... thank you.  I've got it going now.

Re: [gentoo-user] Advantages or disadvantages of use package.use as directory

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-30 12:41, wraeth a écrit :
>> I wonder if there is some advantage to leaving things as my
>> installation has created them or should I revert to the old way
>> where package.use is file... not a directory.
> There's no specific advantage to using separate files within a
> directory to using a single monolithic file other than manageability
> and some utilities, as far as I'm aware.
>
I think that having separate directories makes things much easier to manage when your system divert in major ways from the official ones.

For example in my ARM (and soon MIPS on the Creator) linux I want the mate desktop but not all packages have been tested and approved so I need a lot of entries to get them to compile. I do not want an entirely unstable system so I start with the stable 
one and customize, only using package that I consider stable enough for my use. Having multiple files makes my life easier.

Even if you do not need this kind of stuff it can still be usefull, why cram everything in one file!

Michel

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/