| 1 |
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:52:06 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are |
| 5 |
> purely advisory for the package manager: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> "[...] any use flag name in IUSE may be prefixed by at most one of a |
| 8 |
> plus or a minus sign. If such a prefix is present, the package manager |
| 9 |
> may use it as a suggestion as to the default value of the use flag if |
| 10 |
> no other configuration overrides it." [1] |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's useful to know, but the problem as I see it is clearly greater |
| 13 |
than just USE defaults and Portages application of them: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Its the complexity that following USE flags implies, in two places: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1. REQUIRED_USE satisfaction |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
2. DEPEND=" use? ( .... ) !use? ( .... )" interactions across multiple |
| 20 |
packages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So while it might be *useful* to know you can ignore the defaults in IUSE |
| 23 |
it doesn't solve the real problem of portage presenting lots of conflicting |
| 24 |
options to a user which the user may not care about having to solve. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So as I see it, this issue is more about asking how we can use IUSE defaults |
| 27 |
in a way that simplifies end users life, instead of making it harder. |
Archives