On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 00:27 -0600, Dale wrote: > William Kenworthy wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 20:45 -0600, Dale wrote: > > > >> Marcus Wanner wrote:
... trim ... > > > > The minimal system should be quicker and simpler to update than a crufty > > system - and if you have to update much of gnome and the like, > > updating/reinstalling might take longer than building from scratch > > anyway (going by my last update to gnome :) > > > > BillK > > > > > > I should also add that I use KDE. So, updating all that takes time plus > if there are packages with "issues" then that adds to the grief. It > appears that it depends on just what you have installed. If it is a > bare system, then it may not be to bad. If it is a full blown KDE like > mine, then that could take a really long while. Of course, portage has > been a lot better at handling blocks here lately too. There are > exceptions and they always confuse the heck out of me but it is a lot > better. That should shorten the update time for a lot of packages. > > Maybe a 'emerge -ep world | genlop -p' would be in order here. > > Dale > > :-) :-) Thats why I think removing gnome (or kde) is a good idea - replace with a lightweight desktop so you still have the required functionality. it is for emergency use after all. I find that building from scratch is usually less of a problem than large updates as blocks and problems seem to occur less often. So it is feasable to spend overnight installing gnome/kde if need be as you still have a usable system in the meantime - may not be as nice as kde, but it will still get the job done.
