On 19-03-2010 15:59:07 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Any objections to turning on the udev use flag by default in the base
> profile?

Yeah, can we just do it in the Linux profiles only somewhere?


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

On 03/19/2010 04:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 19-03-2010 15:59:07 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Any objections to turning on the udev use flag by default in the base
>> profile?
>
> Yeah, can we just do it in the Linux profiles only somewhere?
>
>

If udev doesn't work on the system, the flag should be masked like it's
already on BSD. Is there some place where udev works, but shouldn't be
on by default?

Regards,
Petteri

On 03/19/2010 04:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 19-03-2010 15:59:07 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Any objections to turning on the udev use flag by default in the base
>> profile?
>
> Yeah, can we just do it in the Linux profiles only somewhere?
>
>

or rather mask the 'udev' use flag on profiles not supporting it

On Friday 19 March 2010 10:07:59 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 04:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 19-03-2010 15:59:07 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Any objections to turning on the udev use flag by default in the base
> >> profile?
> >
> > Yeah, can we just do it in the Linux profiles only somewhere?
>
> If udev doesn't work on the system, the flag should be masked like it's
> already on BSD. Is there some place where udev works, but shouldn't be
> on by default?

wouldnt it make more sense to invert the logic ? udev only works on linux, so
mask it everywhere by default and unmask it for linux profiles.
-mike

On 03/19/2010 07:25 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 19 March 2010 10:07:59 Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 03/19/2010 04:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 19-03-2010 15:59:07 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>> Any objections to turning on the udev use flag by default in the base
>>>> profile?
>>>
>>> Yeah, can we just do it in the Linux profiles only somewhere?
>>
>> If udev doesn't work on the system, the flag should be masked like it's
>> already on BSD. Is there some place where udev works, but shouldn't be
>> on by default?
>
> wouldnt it make more sense to invert the logic ? udev only works on linux, so
> mask it everywhere by default and unmask it for linux profiles.
> -mike

What matters is the amount of entries. Do we have more linux than other
profiles?

Regards,
Petteri

On Friday 19 March 2010 17:06:19 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 07:25 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 19 March 2010 10:07:59 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> On 03/19/2010 04:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >>> On 19-03-2010 15:59:07 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>>> Any objections to turning on the udev use flag by default in the base
> >>>> profile?
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, can we just do it in the Linux profiles only somewhere?
> >>
> >> If udev doesn't work on the system, the flag should be masked like it's
> >> already on BSD. Is there some place where udev works, but shouldn't be
> >> on by default?
> >
> > wouldnt it make more sense to invert the logic ? udev only works on
> > linux, so mask it everywhere by default and unmask it for linux
> > profiles.
>
> What matters is the amount of entries. Do we have more linux than other
> profiles?

no, we dont. stacked profiles means theres 1 linux base.
-mike