| 1 |
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> |
| 6 |
> > wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be |
| 9 |
> >> added to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's |
| 10 |
> >> bad, |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I'll go further and say that it is unacceptably bad. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Only if anyone wants an upstream-defaults profile. But nobody's asked |
| 16 |
> for one, in contrast with the large number of users who want minimal. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > Is there a better way we can have our cake and eat it too? I'll |
| 20 |
> > admit that a huge package.use on the minimal profile isn't a whole |
| 21 |
> > lot better than a huge package.use on all the other profiles. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Every important upstream default is already enabled in some profile. |
| 24 |
> If dropping a particular IUSE default breaks desktop systems, then |
| 25 |
> that flag belongs enabled in the desktop profile. If it breaks every |
| 26 |
> system, then let's keep it default. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists who |
| 30 |
don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in pursuit |
| 31 |
of "minimalism" we just strive to make USE="-*" mostly usable, so the |
| 32 |
minimalists can get what they want, while still having sane defaults. |
Archives