Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On 2007/07/15, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr> wrote:
>
> > My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER
> > that have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case
> > appart (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely
> > shared, i can live with that), there is still a problem with -* in
> > make.defaults files: the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to
> > IUSE="+cxx", will you remember that, as a consequence, you have to
> > fix hardened/2.6/minimal profile?
>
> Well, it's just like any other renaming of USE flags in that regard.

But it shows that the "we shouldn't care about per-ebuild defaults in
profiles" argument doesn't really stand, which is unfortunate because
Mike is probaly right that it would have been a good thing.

> And while I can see why people would want IUSE defaults to have a
> higher priority than USE in make.defaults and/or make.conf, I suspect
> the vast majority of users would get completely lost in finding out
> where a flag was enabled/disabled (the current system is already
> confusing to a lot of people until they get a detailed explanation).

I don't think it's something which would be that hard to explain to
users.  All it takes is having "emerge -pv" to clearly shows that
something unusual is happening when a flag value is overidden by an
IUSE-default, for instance with an exclamation mark suffix, and to
document that in the man page, with the rest of the --verbose output:
     ! suffix = profile's global default value for this flag is
  overidden by an ebuild-specific setting.  You can still enable / 
  disable it in your own configuration (make.conf or package.use)
  if you really want to.
Maybe i am over-estimating the average user, but to me it doesn't sound
that complicated or obscure.

--
TGL.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list