1 |
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
4 |
> >> |
5 |
> >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide |
6 |
> >> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, |
7 |
> >> because you will break all of the packages whose defaults are either |
8 |
> >> critical to the package, or prevent a REQUIRED_USE conflict. |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > OK, can we all decide out of this thread, that if any package is |
12 |
> > enabling critical functionality via IUSE-defaults (or rather, IUSE |
13 |
> > defaults alone), that this be addressed through package.use.force in |
14 |
> > profiles OR through removal of the flag? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> No. |
17 |
|
18 |
Can this be justified a little more? |
19 |
|
20 |
If a package is broken when a given flag is disabled, why is it not |
21 |
acceptable to not provide the flag? |
22 |
|
23 |
If the flag is still provided for the sake of user choice, why is it |
24 |
unacceptable to force it through package.use.force allowing the majority |
25 |
of users to not need to worry, and letting advanced users break their |
26 |
egg in their quest for an omelette? |
27 |
|
28 |
How is this different (for example, not pointing fingers) from |
29 |
dev-lang/python[threads] being forced because it's broken without it |
30 |
(therefore critical functionality)? |
31 |
|
32 |
Disclaimer: not trying to be argumentative, just trying understand the |
33 |
arguments. :) |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Sam Jorna (wraeth) |
37 |
GnuPG Key: D6180C26 |