Re: [gentoo-user] Two things about portage

2015-01-16 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Thursday 15 January 2015 17:27:29 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Secondly, today's sync fetched thirty thousand files, nearly all in metadata, yet nothing needed upgrading. Is this caused by careless editing? I've noticed before that sed /g alters the time stamp of all files it looks in,

Re: [gentoo-user] Two things about portage

2015-01-16 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Thursday 15 January 2015 10:27:48 Peter Humphrey wrote: ... today's sync fetched thirty thousand files, nearly all in metadata, yet nothing needed upgrading. Is this caused by careless editing? I've noticed before that sed /g alters the time stamp of all files it looks in, regardless of

Re: [gentoo-user] Two things about portage

2015-01-15 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Secondly, today's sync fetched thirty thousand files, nearly all in metadata, yet nothing needed upgrading. Is this caused by careless editing? I've noticed before that sed /g alters the time stamp of all files it looks in, regardless of whether it changes anything. Most likely an eclass

Re: [gentoo-user] Two things about portage

2015-01-15 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:27:48 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: Is it only me who sees a difference between the order in which portage offers to install packages and the order in which it does install them? I see it too, I've always put it down to my use of --jobs. It means portage cannot start