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

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.pa

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.mas

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

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

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 defau

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

2006-07-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
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 ?