| 1 |
On 02/02/17 10:14 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> |
| 7 |
>>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be |
| 10 |
>>>> added to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's |
| 11 |
>>>> bad, |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> I'll go further and say that it is unacceptably bad. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Only if anyone wants an upstream-defaults profile. But nobody's asked |
| 17 |
>> for one, in contrast with the large number of users who want minimal. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>>> Is there a better way we can have our cake and eat it too? I'll |
| 21 |
>>> admit that a huge package.use on the minimal profile isn't a whole |
| 22 |
>>> lot better than a huge package.use on all the other profiles. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Every important upstream default is already enabled in some profile. |
| 25 |
>> If dropping a particular IUSE default breaks desktop systems, then |
| 26 |
>> that flag belongs enabled in the desktop profile. If it breaks every |
| 27 |
>> system, then let's keep it default. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists who |
| 31 |
> don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in pursuit |
| 32 |
> of "minimalism" we just strive to make USE="-*" mostly usable, so the |
| 33 |
> minimalists can get what they want, while still having sane defaults. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I'm in favour of this too -- I know we don't "officially" support |
| 37 |
USE="-*" but I think we should still strive to make it work with |
| 38 |
minimal effort to end-users -- that effort being mainly setting |
| 39 |
whatever is necessary for REQUIRED_USE resolution. |
Archives