Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry
On Saturday 15 July 2006 23:37, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:54, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an "opt-out" system > > rather than "opt-in" ? > > patch attached ... no complaints, i'll merge it in a day or two :p merged -mike pgpi3jxTGFDl3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:54, Mike Frysinger wrote: > can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an "opt-out" system > rather than "opt-in" ? patch attached ... no complaints, i'll merge it in a day or two :p -mike pgpkf9VkbsyOW.pgp Description: PGP signature cleanup-arch-use-mask.patch.bz2 Description: BZip2 compressed data
Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 21:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an "opt-out" system > rather > than "opt-in" ? instead of adding things like: > dmi > icc > mmx > svga > ... > > to every non-x86 profile, why dont we mask these things in base/use.mask and > then un-mask them in default-linux/x86 ? doesnt that make more sense ? Absolutely. Feel free to do it. I know x86 won't mind. If you have a complete list, I can do it, if you don't have time. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 04:55, Simon Stelling wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an "opt-out" system > > rather than "opt-in" ? instead of adding things like: > > to every non-x86 profile, why dont we mask these things in base/use.mask > > and then un-mask them in default-linux/x86 ? doesnt that make more sense > > ? > > I asked myself the same question about two weeks ago and made up a huge > patch, I just didn't get around to verify it's really correct and > complete. I can mail it to you if you want :) please do -mike pgpLO6HWoxala.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry
Mike Frysinger wrote: can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an "opt-out" system rather than "opt-in" ? instead of adding things like: to every non-x86 profile, why dont we mask these things in base/use.mask and then un-mask them in default-linux/x86 ? doesnt that make more sense ? I asked myself the same question about two weeks ago and made up a huge patch, I just didn't get around to verify it's really correct and complete. I can mail it to you if you want :) -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry
Mike Frysinger wrote: > can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an "opt-out" system > rather > than "opt-in" ? instead of adding things like: > dmi > icc > mmx > svga > ... > > to every non-x86 profile, why dont we mask these things in base/use.mask and > then un-mask them in default-linux/x86 ? doesnt that make more sense ? Yes. I've tried to do things this way with modular X. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature