-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 05/29/2012 05:23 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM, hasufell <email@example.com>
>> I am against too many defaults. It's documented and people can
>> activate it. I'm already annoyed by pre-set stuff like "cups" in
> While universal agreement is a bit much to hope for, I just wanted
> to point out that fewer defaults is really just an illusion.
> There is ALWAYS a default, anytime you have an option. The
> default might be one thing, or it might be another, but there is
> ALWAYS a default. My thinking is that our defaults should
> generally reflect the most mainstream or least-surprising behavior,
> especially where there are upstream projects. in the case of
> portage, we are the upstream, so we should do whatever is most
> useful and least obnoxious to our users.
> If you're running something other than a generic desktop/server,
> there will always be a need to tweak things.
Well then let my clarify: I'm against too many pre-set (meaning
That's probably a seperate discussion, but I myself would expect the
_default_ profile/config to have almost nothing activated. No
useflags, no features etc.
That may imply that this default is "broken", but it takes more time
to do reverse-configuration while looking for things that someone
considered "sane" and has set for your "convenience".
I discovered this the first time I set up a blank chroot and got a
load of stuff pulled in by some trivial emerges. Some set by already
mentioned releases/make.defaults and similar, some set by ebuilds etc.
What you do with other profiles is a completely different topic,
because I'm not forced to use them.
means: I don't like the fact that I have to set
That should almost never be the case (unless I set some globally and
unset some locally or use desktop-profiles etc).
am I offtopic already? Hope you got the point though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----