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

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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 317 bytes --]

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 ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

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

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 431 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

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

[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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

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

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 226 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: cleanup-arch-use-mask.patch.bz2 --]
[-- Type: application/x-bzip2, Size: 4335 bytes --]

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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]