| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200 |
| 2 |
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact |
| 7 |
> > same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults |
| 8 |
> > should live in the ebuild, not the profile |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I agree that putting per-package defaults in ebuilds is far more |
| 11 |
> elegant than putting them in profiles. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER |
| 14 |
> that have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case appart |
| 15 |
> (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely shared, i |
| 16 |
> can live with that), there is still a problem with -* in make.defaults |
| 17 |
> files: the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you |
| 18 |
> remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal |
| 19 |
> profile? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, it's just like any other renaming of USE flags in that regard. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> And also, in bug #61732 there is this comment from Zac about "-foo" |
| 24 |
> not being supported because pkginternal is at the bottom of the stack. |
| 25 |
> Imho, that's missing a great opportunity to make users' life a bit |
| 26 |
> easier... Take the "gtk" flag, which is on by default in usual desktop |
| 27 |
> profiles, but as the drawback to trigger GTK+-1.2 installation just |
| 28 |
> for a few CLI programs which comes with an optional obsolete GUI: |
| 29 |
> wouldn't it be nice if said packages could state IUSE="-gtk", so that |
| 30 |
> the default behavior would be to install only GTK+-2.x GUIs? I'm |
| 31 |
> pretty sure it would save a tenth of /etc/portage/package.use entries |
| 32 |
> for many users. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
IIRC that has been added a little while ago, but with the current |
| 35 |
default USE_ORDER it's more or less useless. And while I can see why |
| 36 |
people would want IUSE defaults to have a higher priority than |
| 37 |
USE in make.defaults and/or make.conf, I suspect the vast majority of |
| 38 |
users would get completely lost in finding out where a flag was |
| 39 |
enabled/disabled (the current system is already confusing to a lot of |
| 40 |
people until they get a detailed explanation). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Marius |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives