| 1 |
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 09:27 pm, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:50:58PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 24 August 2005 08:04 pm, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Again, returning to the USE="-*" arguement, yes, they can go that |
| 5 |
> > > route. It's also kind of a crappy arguement dodging out of the fact |
| 6 |
> > > that progressive bloat going into what is effectively a base release |
| 7 |
> > > profile, when subprofiles would be better suited. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > not sure what you mean by 'progressive bloat' ... most of those flags |
| 10 |
> > have been there since before i was a dev (so like before the 1.2 release) |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > the default profile has always been a 'desktop' target and really i think |
| 13 |
> > that's OK by me |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Reasons against sticking a level of indirection in? |
| 16 |
> More then willing to assume I've been a tool and missed it, but with |
| 17 |
> cascaded profiles there really isn't a good arguement against tagging |
| 18 |
> a level in so that anyone after it can just use minimal, or derive a |
| 19 |
> server profile off of it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
not quite sure what you're talking about ... the 'USE bloat' only exists in |
| 22 |
subprofiles |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- base doesnt define any USE |
| 25 |
- default-linux defines a few local xorg USE (because no one has given us the |
| 26 |
ability to control default USE via IUSE yet :P) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
{x86,amd64}/make.defaults has the 'bloated' USE because every single sub x86 |
| 29 |
and amd64 profile had the same USE in them ... if you want to re-push them |
| 30 |
into subprofiles like 200[45].[01], that's fine by me ... will have to check |
| 31 |
with wolf/releng so they dont revert it :P |
| 32 |
-mike |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives