Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

[Róbert Čerňanský]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:23:27 +1300
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote:

> >> I'd personally rather the list of "automatically turn this on if
> >> required" be something I had the power to restrict than have a
> >> blanket "autodostuff", because in the event some USE can't be

Although I prefer non-explicit auto/lazy use flags, the explicit
approach is also perfectly fine (especially when compared to current
situation).  In the end I would most certainly be able to specify all
use flags as lazy and thus have effectively the same behaviour as with
non-explicit approach.

> So in comparison:
>
> /etc/portage/package.use  is essentially "the world file but for
> useflags"
>
> And we have no analogue of
>
> /etc/porage/package.unmask  or /etc/portage/package.keywords that
> applies to useflags.

I find /etc/portage/package.use (or make.conf) analogous to world AND
mask files.  For packages world + mask files give you possibility to
specify which packages you:

- want (listed in world file)
- don't want (listed in a mask file)
- not care (not listed in any of them)

(Assuming non-explicit approach) similarly for use flags, package.use
or make.conf gives you possibility to specify which use flags you:

- want (listed in package.use or make.conf)
- don't want (listed with '-' in package.use or make.conf)
- not care (not listed in any of them)

The advantage of explicit approach could be that even if a use flag is
enabled or disabled globally, it would still be possible to make it
lazy/automatic for specific packages.

> I can see how some people might want an analogue of "just install
> dependencies if they're needed regardless if I said I need them" that
> applies to useflags, but you'd probably want a "don't install this
> even if it appeared to be needed" companion tool that behaves akin to
> /etc/portage/package.mask

This would be package.use or make.conf.


-- 
Róbert Èeròanský
E-mail: openhs@×××××××××.com
Jabber: hs@××××××.sk