Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Introducing an optional files directory in the Portage tree with an embedded install condition and individual maintainers. (was Re: [gentoo-project] Proposal for add-on file utility (run after emerge update))
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:12:26
Message-Id: CAA2qdGU_nNaro-=UxVaJY_8y1H7tQhC0odE8JaVNfTEvuTUgRQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Introducing an optional files directory in the Portage tree with an embedded install condition and individual maintainers. (was Re: [gentoo-project] Proposal for add-on file utility (run after emerge update)) by hasufell
1 On Jun 16, 2013 9:52 PM, "hasufell" <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3
4 --snip--
5
6 >
7 > Doing it via regular useflags is just wrong.
8 >
9
10 I'm sorry, but what's wrong with using USE flags?
11
12 I mean, some people have already been using USE="-*" because they don't
13 want portage to emerge something they don't want (of course, doing so ends
14 up in lots of teeth-gnashing, but that's beside the point).
15
16 I myself perused for whatever USE flags there is and manually disable
17 everything I don't want to get installed. Like, USE="-docs -examples"
18
19 So why not specify one or more additional USE flags which are by default
20 enabled, e.g., "openrc" and "systemd"; user not disabling them will get the
21 whole enchiladas. Yes, users disabling both of them (e.g., "-*") will end
22 up with a totally borked system, but that's the price one pays for
23 specifying "-*", and if a News item is pushed waay before we implement
24 these init-system-related flags, there should be much fewer caught
25 unaware...
26
27 Rgds,
28 --

Replies