1 |
Ben Kohler wrote: |
2 |
> Nobody is "disabling choice" here, |
3 |
|
4 |
Fair! Sorry about the hyperbole. |
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
> a change in defaults doesn't remove your ability to choose something else. |
8 |
|
9 |
True. My argument is more specificically that setting USE flags by |
10 |
default in a "low-level" profile goes in the wrong direction. |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
> And I understand your sentiment that adding more default-on flags goes |
14 |
> against YOUR goals of a minimal gentoo, but I'd like to remind you and |
15 |
> others that this minimalism is not the goal of every gentoo user. |
16 |
|
17 |
It's important that this is a low-ish-level profile. Unfortunately Matt |
18 |
didn't respond to my question/point about profile inheritance. |
19 |
|
20 |
I don't expect a gentoo desktop system to be minimal. I would however |
21 |
like being able to build upon a minimal profile (not a desktop one) |
22 |
with nothing in it, as opposed to having to essentially create a new |
23 |
profile for each of my configurations. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
> I want to be clear that I'm not saying you are wrong, but remember that |
27 |
> your perspective is not the only correct one on this topic. |
28 |
|
29 |
Maybe the discussion should focus on different kinds of profiles? |
30 |
|
31 |
I'm not concerned about typical "user-facing" profiles here, it can |
32 |
make plenty sense to enable these USE flags by default in those. |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
36 |
> all I personally want is to be reasonably sure what my configurations |
37 |
> are going to do without having to list every individual package and |
38 |
> USE flag explicitly. |
39 |
|
40 |
Exactly this. Unfortunately I've had to give up on it, as USE flags |
41 |
are set by default here and there, but I'd love to be able to rely |
42 |
on a minimal starting point that will stay minimal. |
43 |
|
44 |
Thank you for your mail Michael, you expressed my concern very well. |
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
Kind regards |
48 |
|
49 |
//Peter |