| 1 |
On 02/02/2017 10:06 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally guilty |
| 4 |
>> of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see |
| 5 |
>> explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on by default. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This presumes that the goal is minimal system in all cases, rather than |
| 8 |
> a good user experience for inter alia a desktop system or a |
| 9 |
> server-system. If a user requires a minimal system for whatever reason |
| 10 |
> (s)he is likely more prepared to understand the choices than the average |
| 11 |
> user. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, |
| 15 |
only that the base profile should result in an effectively-minimal set |
| 16 |
of USE flags. Adding IUSE defaults is essentially adding defaults to the |
| 17 |
base profile. Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) |
| 18 |
on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in |
| 19 |
the base one. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't think minimal should be our default, but it should be |
| 22 |
*possible*. It practically isn't so long as people mix uses #1, #3, and |
| 23 |
#4. I guess I would also be happy if we outlawed use #1 so that USE="-*" |
| 24 |
would be supported. In any case, we should document how to use them. |
| 25 |
Having them mean four different things causes confusion. |
Archives