| 1 |
On 02/02/2017 11:08 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Which is simpler, a minimal profile that sets USE=-* and then lists a |
| 4 |
> few exceptions where that breaks in package.use, or an upstream |
| 5 |
> defaults profile (which becomes the basis for all the other profiles) |
| 6 |
> that has a 5000 line package.use file that specifies the upstream |
| 7 |
> defaults for every package in the repository? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It's honestly hard to say. I see your point, but "a few exceptions" |
| 11 |
might not be so few. Every IUSE default that |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
(1) enables something critical, or |
| 14 |
(2) enables a default choice for a REQUIRED_USE constraint |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
would need to be added back to the minimal profile. And of course the |
| 17 |
reason I started this thread is that those two usages are common. I |
| 18 |
clearly had the "minimal base" profile in mind, but the fact that (1) |
| 19 |
and (2) are used throughout the tree creates problems for any minimal |
| 20 |
profile, even is the base profile is "upstream defaults." |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added |
| 23 |
to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, but if |
| 24 |
(base == upstream-defaults), then the important IUSE defaults need to be |
| 25 |
copy/pasted from our ebuilds into the minimal profile. The latter is |
| 26 |
more spiritually damning =) |
Archives