From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E89av-0002er-Du for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:44:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7P4UOrQ007439; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:30:24 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7P4R5vw006199 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:27:06 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E89LU-0006Xj-6R for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:28:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 29403 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2005 00:24:56 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 25 Aug 2005 00:24:56 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] crap use flags in the profiles Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:28:50 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <200508242050.58465.vapier@gentoo.org> <20050825012700.GE1701@nightcrawler> In-Reply-To: <20050825012700.GE1701@nightcrawler> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508250028.50136.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 5eaee6ad-342c-4806-922d-de9fe085418f X-Archives-Hash: 203ca1554fe1a55d80536859ba875268 On Wednesday 24 August 2005 09:27 pm, Brian Harring wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:50:58PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 August 2005 08:04 pm, Brian Harring wrote: > > > Again, returning to the USE="-*" arguement, yes, they can go that > > > route. It's also kind of a crappy arguement dodging out of the fact > > > that progressive bloat going into what is effectively a base release > > > profile, when subprofiles would be better suited. > > > > not sure what you mean by 'progressive bloat' ... most of those flags > > have been there since before i was a dev (so like before the 1.2 release) > > > > the default profile has always been a 'desktop' target and really i think > > that's OK by me > > Reasons against sticking a level of indirection in? > More then willing to assume I've been a tool and missed it, but with > cascaded profiles there really isn't a good arguement against tagging > a level in so that anyone after it can just use minimal, or derive a > server profile off of it. not quite sure what you're talking about ... the 'USE bloat' only exists in subprofiles - base doesnt define any USE - default-linux defines a few local xorg USE (because no one has given us the ability to control default USE via IUSE yet :P) {x86,amd64}/make.defaults has the 'bloated' USE because every single sub x86 and amd64 profile had the same USE in them ... if you want to re-push them into subprofiles like 200[45].[01], that's fine by me ... will have to check with wolf/releng so they dont revert it :P -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list