From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QZtFC-00060o-5z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:23:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C23E61C08D; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org (mail.ukfsn.org [77.75.108.10]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4351C067 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B99DEC80 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:17:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org ([192.168.54.25]) by localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KiF9b8wPrRrI for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:17:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from wstn.localnet (unknown [78.32.181.186]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460D8DEC63 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:17:40 +0100 (BST) From: Peter Humphrey Organization: at home To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Do we have to build gcc with fortran now? Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:17:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo-r6; KDE/4.6.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <4E0167C4.9080100@gmail.com> <201106232330.04283.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <2041668.8aWOlI8Y2M@nazgul> In-Reply-To: <2041668.8aWOlI8Y2M@nazgul> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106240017.39644.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 474253e8dfd5861a8944fa47103b255a On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:48:11 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:30:04 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly: > > On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote: > > > Maybe we have something different then. I don't have > > > blas-reference on here anymore either. My point was, disabling > > > fortran to remove it only lead to other stuff being required. > > > I think there is more on here now than there was before. So, > > > removing fortran to get rid of bloat didn't help any because it > > > just required a different set of bloat. > > > > Maybe it's time to make a backup, then remove all USE flags from > > make.conf and package.use, set your profile to > > default/linux//10.0/desktop/kde and rebuild. Alan and Neil's > > idea of a set of the meta-packages you want sounds good to me too. > > > > Then you'll really have a clean system. > > You will have whatever system the profile maintainer thinks the > average user should have, bloated to whatever degree said maintainer > thinks is a good idea. Yes, of course. My point is that you can forget about maintaining all those USE flags yourself. > No USE flags set does not mean no options set, it means default. And > default sets plenty flags ON > > > I may follow suit - I built this system with kde-meta for > > simplicity, but of course it now has a lot of stuff I don't want, > > including Fortran. I tried rebuilding with -fortran as I said a few > > minutes ago, but portage wanted ifc instead. > > kde-meta gives you all the stuff that's useful on the average system, > plus all of accessibility, kdebindings, kdeedu, games, the sdk, toys > and maybe even webdev. I know, and I used to take the time to find all the things I did want and just install those. I used kde-meta this once just from laziness. Now I get to keep the whole hog-roast. > I can't think of the kind of user that truly does actually need all of > that. Me neither. So maybe the time's approaching when I go and slim the whole shebang down. It'll have to wait until I've finished the current round of redesign of my website though. 177 pages to modify - that should keep me off the street corners for a while. -- Rgds Peter