On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Christopher Head <ch...@chead.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but >> the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user. And the context here >> is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with >> -cups? If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed >> than chromium in the first place. > > Sorry, I thought the point was to make the base profile “sane but > minimal”, not to make it server-specific. In that case USE=cups might > make sense.
We might be talking past each other. Sane but minimal is the target. Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system should have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting it in @system - ugh!). The question is whether a minimal/base system should have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that actually use it. And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one. I just want to make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that everybody and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice them being removed anyway. Rich
