| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:25:02 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 07:33:59 -0400 |
| 6 |
>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > Some other questionable ones: |
| 8 |
>> > emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> We've had this discussion before... The question is not "are people |
| 11 |
>> likely to want emboss?". The question is "of people who use packages |
| 12 |
>> that have an emboss use flag, are those people likely to want emboss?". |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The question is "why aren't those packages using IUSE="+emboss" instead of |
| 15 |
> cluttering up the profiles with obscure USE flags?". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Agreed, IF anybody using that package is likely to want that flag on |
| 18 |
any profile. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Package defaults are good for the case when anybody using that package |
| 21 |
on any profile is likely to want that flag. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Profile defaults are good for the case when anybody using that profile |
| 24 |
is across-the-board likely to want or not want that flag. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In the case of emboss setting it (or not) at the package level would |
| 27 |
seem to make sense. I can't see how having support for some |
| 28 |
particular scientific application suite is going to vary depending on |
| 29 |
whether the package is installed on a desktop vs server, or with |
| 30 |
hardened vs non-hardened. I could see overriding it on hardened |
| 31 |
making sense if it didn't build on that profile. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives