Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Montag, 16. Oktober 2006 00:59 schrieb Alec Warner:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > |
> > | Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are
> > | you talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of
> > | this feature?
> >
> > Before changing default values for USE flags, arch and release
> > people have to make sure that that change won't do something nasty
> > like introduce circular or built_with_use deps into the default
> > system resolution.
>
> I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things.
> If I change default USE in my ebuild; I have to do sanity checks.  If
> I change default USE in the profile; I have to do sanity checks *in
> that profile*.
>
> So if your argument is that it's cheaper to check just N profiles (
> the profiles affected by my change ) versus all available profiles;
> then I agree with you on that point.
>
> However I still believe there exist examples where default USE in an
> ebuild is a better solution.

>From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having
all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain.

Ciaran has a point here: Default useflags have annoyed me in the past
while building releases, and having to change several packages (and 
redigesting them) for the snapshot is way more:
 * complicated
 * time-consuming
 * error-prone
than changing them in the profiles directory.

Chris: I'd like to have your thoughts on this.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list