| 1 |
On 02/07/2017 02:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are |
| 4 |
> purely advisory for the package manager: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> "[...] any use flag name in IUSE may be prefixed by at most one of a |
| 7 |
> plus or a minus sign. If such a prefix is present, the package manager |
| 8 |
> may use it as a suggestion as to the default value of the use flag if |
| 9 |
> no other configuration overrides it." [1] |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Portage can be made to ignore IUSE defaults by omitting "pkginternal" |
| 12 |
> from USE_ORDER, i.e. by adding the following line to make.conf [2]: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> #USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:repo:env.d" |
| 15 |
> USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:defaults:repo:env.d" |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> One could even think about adding this to a future minimal profile. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide |
| 21 |
when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, |
| 22 |
because you will break all of the packages whose defaults are either |
| 23 |
critical to the package, or prevent a REQUIRED_USE conflict. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If that means IUSE defaults are the wrong solution to those problems, |
| 26 |
then it would be beneficial to have some "Guidelines for IUSE defaults" |
| 27 |
so that developers solve the problems correctly. |
Archives