Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry

2006-07-19 Thread Mike Frysinger 
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

2006-07-15 Thread Mike Frysinger 
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

2006-07-05 Thread Donnie Berkholz 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] arch-cruft in use.mask makes me angry

2006-07-05 Thread Simon Stelling 

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

2006-07-05 Thread Mike Frysinger 
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

2006-07-05 Thread Chris Gianelloni 
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