cat /usr/portage/profiles/base/packages - and all will be revealed :) All profiles should inherit from this - but may provide their own modifications - e.g.
/usr/portage/profiles/arch/sparc/packages adds sparc-utils to @system on that set of platforms. Cheers, malc. On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Mark Knecht <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Paul Hartman > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Mark Knecht <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Paul Hartman >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Mark Knecht <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I would like emerge -epv @system to be a fairly contained set of >>>>> packages. (If possible like it was when I first built the system a >>>>> mere 5 weeks ago...) It seems out of control on my system these days >>>>> as it wants to emerge 242 packages. One major contributor is not using >>>>> a global -cups use flag in make.conf which would reduce it to 178. >>>>> That was added to figure out why Gnome didn't see Sups printers at >>>>> all. Sure, I would then have to turn on cups for certain packages but >>>>> that's OK with me. However I still see cairo, icedtea-bin, virtual >>>>> java stuff, alsa-libs, and a bunch of x11-proto files so it doesn't >>>>> feel like @system stuff to me >>>>> >>>>> 1) Where is the 'system' or '@system' specification on my machine? >>>>> >>>>> 2) If you folks run emerge -epv @system then how machine packages do you >>>>> see? >>>> >>>> I believe it all depends on the profile you're using. If you're using >>>> a desktop profile maybe that's why it's calling in GUI toolkits and >>>> stuff... >>>> >>> >>> Thanks Paul. I hadn't thought of that and I think you're correct. I >>> played a bit with changing profiles and then looking at what emerge >>> -epv @system would or would not do. It's clearly related. >>> >>> In the end I wonder if this is a lost cause? If the packages I run >>> really require these flags then they are all going to get built the >>> same way. I'd prefer that @system was simple and that @world showed >>> how I had changed the system to meet my needs, but I'm not sure it's >>> worth the effort at this point to get there. >> >> Looking in the current desktop profile, it shows this: >> >> USE="a52 aac acpi alsa branding cairo cdr dbus dts dvd dvdr eds emboss >> encode evo fam firefox flac gif gnome gpm gstreamer gtk hal jpeg kde >> ldap libnotify mad mikmod mng mp3 mp4 mpeg ogg opengl pdf png ppds >> qt3support qt4 quicktime sdl spell svg thunar tiff truetype vorbis >> win32codecs unicode usb X x264 xml xulrunner xv xvid" >> >> So support for things like gnome, gtk, kde and qt4 are there by >> default. I guess you could take the above list, put a - in front of >> the ones you don't think you want and put it in make.conf and see what >> happens. :) >> >> > Yeah, that's interesting and to some extent anyway probably involved > with why I'm getting a lot of the package I get. What I'm not > understanding yet is what packages themselves are in @system. Where do > those come from? I'm assuming that because of all these flags some > system packages then require more and more support packages as an > avalance, but I'm not understanding what list of packages gets the > whole things started. > > @world is /var/lib/portage/world. > > @system is ? > > Thanks, > Mark > >
