stage3.1 USE flags, okay to 'ignore' differences?
On Sat 20 August 2011 22:13:07 Pandu Poluan did opine thusly:
> I hope someone can shed me some light here.
> I keep finding myself doing time-consuming emerges for my Gentoo
> (virtual) systems (e.g., gcc-4.5.3, glibc-2.13, emerge -e, and so
> on). So, I found myself wanting to build a so-called 'stage3.1'
> tarball (i.e., a stage3 tarball *plus* the things I did all this
> Now, my systems have different USE flags, depending on its usage. So
> my question is:
> Can I just disregard the differences in USE flags for my stage3.1
> (e.g., just use the most-minimal amount of USE flags) and do an
> emerge -avuND @system @world for every system having a different
> set of USE flag? Or should I make one stage3.1 tarball for each USE
> flag combination?
Either way works. All you have here is a classic case of finding the
sweet spot that is maximum commonality and minimum hassle to tweak it.
Only you can define where that sweet spot is, as the answer relies on
things like how much resources you have to re-compile, the number of
re-emerging to be done, and how little (or much) tolerance you have.
To get a real answer you'd have to give full details on your new
tarball, USE flags, and how the actual machines using them differ.
Then describe the impact of those changes and which bits you are happy
with. I then doubt many people would bother reading and responding :-)
Personally, I consider anything that needs glibc, gcc and the bulk of
@system to be rebuild to be a PITA and I'd be making different
tarballs for those once. But if the list of remerges is say 30 perl
packages then I wouldn't bother and just stick with one tarball as
that update is about 4 minutes worth of time. But that's just me.
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
|All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 AM.|
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.