| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 12:10:44AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> | Yeah, but the angle I'm pushing for default IUSE's ...er.. use is |
| 4 |
> | eliminating no* flags, and giving ebuild maintainers more flexibility |
| 5 |
> | in breaking the package down into conditionals. |
| 6 |
> | |
| 7 |
> | I really don't see -* being all that useful long term frankly, since |
| 8 |
> | the major usage of it I've seen is either within cascaded profiles, or |
| 9 |
> | nuking autouse; people do block profile use flags also, but killing |
| 10 |
> | autouse falls in with killing profiles :) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I don't think that having -* not actually do -* is a good idea. And most |
| 13 |
> people adding local flags don't really consider the -* case so creating |
| 14 |
> no* flags isn't a major concern. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> ~From my POV, -* is expected to not work well, but it should do what it |
| 17 |
> suggests: subtract everything. |
| 18 |
Meh. |
| 19 |
-* 's meaning right now is to nuke all USE flags that portage tries to |
| 20 |
'help' in adding. Having it nuke all default use seems wrong, since |
| 21 |
people *currently* use -* to block autouse crap, and -* isn't what |
| 22 |
they signed up for initially. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Different flag imo seems wise, rather then grandfathering people into |
| 25 |
it; nuking what the profile offers should be available, but I don't |
| 26 |
think nuking default IUSE should be nuked as an added bonus of trying |
| 27 |
to disable auto-use/profile cruft. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thoughts? |
| 30 |
~harring |
Archives