Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

[Kent Fredric]

On 10 February 2016 at 14:12, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>> I'd personally rather the list of "automatically turn this on if
>> required" be something I had the power to restrict than have a blanket
>> "autodostuff", because in the event some USE can't be satisfied, the
>> first time that USE flag was deemed "Needed" I'd want to be told that
>> it was needed, and be prompted to chose a solution.
>
> Wouldn't this be analogous to putting every package you install in
> your world file?


The current situation with "USE" flags is more like having 80% of
portage unavailable due to package.mask/keywords, and where you have
to unmask every package you merely wish to *permit* to be installed,
either by doing it on a per-package level with package.unmask, or
doing it super-globally with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=

And but even this would be better than the USE situation, because
neither package.mask or the keywording tricks *Force* the package to
be installed, they merely *permit* the package to be installed, and
then depclean can also be relied upon to purge those packages if you
don't put them in your world file.

So in comparison:

/etc/portage/package.use  is essentially "the world file but for useflags"

And we have no analogue of

/etc/porage/package.unmask  or /etc/portage/package.keywords that
applies to useflags.

I can see how some people might want an analogue of "just install
dependencies if they're needed regardless if I said I need them" that
applies to useflags, but you'd probably want a "don't install this
even if it appeared to be needed" companion tool that behaves akin to
/etc/portage/package.mask



-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL