| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide |
| 5 |
>> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, |
| 6 |
>> because you will break all of the packages whose defaults are either |
| 7 |
>> critical to the package, or prevent a REQUIRED_USE conflict. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> OK, can we all decide out of this thread, that if any package is |
| 11 |
> enabling critical functionality via IUSE-defaults (or rather, IUSE |
| 12 |
> defaults alone), that this be addressed through package.use.force in |
| 13 |
> profiles OR through removal of the flag? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> That at least seems like a positive first step to helping address |
| 19 |
> Michael's concerns, and should generally help all end-users. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It only helps users who want to manually enable every single feature |
| 23 |
they use with an otherwise-minimal configuration. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If you want to create a minimal profile feel free, and if you want to |
| 26 |
propose some way for everybody to have their cake and eat it too |
| 27 |
without maintainers manually maintaining per-package flags in |
| 28 |
profiles, that is fine as well. However, I think your proposal to use |
| 29 |
IUSE defaults only for REQUIRED_USE conflicts is a bad one. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives