Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800 > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is >> added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's >> entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to a smaller setting), >> correct? > > It would mean that all USE_EXPANDed variables get stacked in the same > way that USE does. The base profile defines a set of defaults, which > gets flags added to or removed from it in other profiles. At present, > from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which > essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove > them in subprofiles.
I'd rather not make USE_EXPAND incremental if we can't subtract flags. At present, we accomplish that by simply resetting the whole thing in subprofiles. But the proposal seems to make impossible any subprofile of a valid profile that wishes to negate a setting of the parent. Thanks, Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
