Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> And it was also because of a cross-compiler. When I looked at how much >> extra work this type fragmentation causes, and how little (or any!) >> advantage it gives makes one wonder about the designers sanity ... I've run across this several times already. For now I have avoided the dir expansion, as I find one (larger) file easier to parse. Often I less the one file to see what is in there and delete things manually. It would seem like when you delete (-C) a package it would check all of /etc/portage for entries to remove, but I do not think that happens. Still, now that we're all moving to git everywhere (on your system) I suspect having separate files is better/easier for those devs and hackers amongst us. > What ought to have happened, and the convention had long existed when > this scheme for portage was thought up, is to call the directory > /etc/portage/package.mask.d/ > then you could easily have a main file and as many subsidiary files as > you need/want. Just like how every other package seems to do it. Yep. Brilliant and simple. File a bug:: feature request. Why not make the request. We already support /etc/make.conf and /etc/portage/make.conf so masking can occur in (2) dirs to ease the migration to a more sensible nomenclature and tree structure.... James
