On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:59:24 -0500, Dale wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file > >> just grew my a huge amount. > > You package.use has grown by one filesystem block at most, how much > > extra disk space and CPU cycles would you use by compiling 32 bit > > options for every package that has them? > I wasn't worried about disk space, just that I rarely use entries in > that file. Heck, it's enough to manage the other package.* files > already. I wonder if it may have been better to update the multilib profiles to set the flag globally be default, it would make life easier and you could still turn it off if you wanted to. > > If you use a single file for package.use, it does make it far more > > cumbersome to manage, but that's why I switched to separate files many > > years ago. > I've tried separate files and having them all in one file. Either way, > each entry requires a person to manage it. For me at least, it's six of > one and half a dozen of the other. ;-) Actually, it's one big one vs six small ones :) I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings for each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed - for example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to comment every entry in the file so I know why I put it there and whether I still needed it. -- Neil Bothwick If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success?
pgpeFwRhfKmQC.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
