Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> >>> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> >>> really offer any benefit over package.use?
> >>
> >> Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is
> >> recommended as the default for most users for a package??
> >
> > other examples that make sense and are a pain with package.use:
> >  - local USE flags (suddenly not so local huh)
>
> betelgeuse@pena /usr/portage/profiles $ cat base/package.use
> # This file requires >=portage-2.1.2 (see bug #61732)
>
> # Strongly recommended, otherwise all logos, icons, etc. appear in b/w.
> app-editors/emacs xpm
> app-editors/emacs-cvs xpm
>
> Seems local to me...

you missed the point ... ideally local USE flags should not appear outside of 
an ebuild.  if i had a solution for it, i'd propose getting rid of 
use.local.desc ...

> >  - local USE flags and changing names
>
> Normally you would only have to change base/package.use

"normally" doesnt cut it.  package.use is stackable and can appear in any 
profile directory which means these flags can be listed anywhere.

> >  - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >=
> > 2.x)
>
> package.use should accept version atoms
>
> >  - developing new ebuilds for personal use
>
> /etc/portage/package.use
>
> >  - developing new ebuilds for merging into tree (btw: need to update all
> > these other files in profiles/ instead of just committing the one ebuild)
>
> base/package.use

your replies have just backed up my point: it's a [pain]ita when it should be 
a [pleasent]ita.
-mike