[gentoo-user] Re: This nite's switch to "full multilib"

[Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>]

On 2015-04-02, Róbert Čerňanský <openhs@tightmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:41:10 +0100
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:21:01 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
>> 
>> > Besides there is such database now - it is your (abused)
>> > package.use! You have to manually add entries to it and I do not
>> > know any database slower than human typing to a text file ;-)
>> > (There is autounmask option of course but then you allow portage to
>> > mess with your files which is not a good thing.)
>> 
>> Portage doesn't change your package.use file, it creates a new one
>> using the standard CONFIG_PROTECT process. Then you use etc-update or
>> similar to view and verify the changes.
>
> What I am trying to tell is that portage manages its stuff (USE
> dependencies), through you, in your configuration files.  It is nice
> that it does not overwrite them directly without asking ;-) but in the
> end the content ends up there one way or other.  Portage should have
> its own internal database for USE deps and manage it like it manages db
> of standard package dependencies.

I prefer it this way.  I do not want all the nice easy-to read/edit
configuration stuff in /etc/portage encrypted some Windows Registry
break-alike.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Were these parsnips
                                  at               CORRECTLY MARINATED in
                              gmail.com            TACO SAUCE?