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

[Róbert Čerňanský]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:19:54 +1300
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote:

> On 10 February 2016 at 02:14, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
> > Another concern, though, is it'd result in something similar.
> > Instead of "cat/foo bar baz" and later removing 'baz', you'd have
> > "cat/foo bar ~baz" (with '~baz' as 'enable this if you need to').
> > You'd still have cruft left in your p.use file, and it would
> > achieve the same result as a well-commented file.
>
>
> Granted you'd still have the cruft in your config files, but it would
> become mostly-harmless cruft, not cruft that caused needless
> dependencies to get pulled into the dependency tree as a side-effect.
>
> And because it would be "only as needed", you could afford to use some
> of those "only if needed" useflags in a more global manner.

The question is whether you really need to specify the lazy use flag
explicitly.  I would say that any flag which user did not set
explicitly to -baz or baz could be considered as lazy use flag.

So if I'd have 'baz' set in /etc/portage/make.conf,
/etc/portage/package.use, USE environment variable or other user
configuration then I'd clearly want to turn on baz (globally or for
specific packages).  Portage would not change the use flag in this
case (again globally or for particular packages only).

On the other side, if I would not specify 'baz' in any of those user
configurations (so it would be specified only in profile, ebuild or
nowhere at all) then I most likely would not care about it therefore
portage can enable or disable it as needed.

BTW, what you are describing is essentially the same as in this bug:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258371.  It was also discussed
on this list couple of times.  I too would very much like to see it in
portage.

Robert


-- 
Róbert Èeròanský
E-mail: openhs@×××××××××.com
Jabber: hs@××××××.sk