| 1 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 9:57:01 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/03/2017 08:07 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I think the current policy of "maintainer's discretion" is probably the |
| 4 |
> > only reasonable way to approach IUSE defaults... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Leaving the IUSE defaults up to the maintainer allows said maintainer |
| 7 |
> > to select what they consider reasonable defaults. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This is the way we currently do things: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> DEFAULTS="+apples -pears +potatoes -chicken +steak +broccoli +spatula" |
| 12 |
> FRUIT="${DEFAULTS} +pears -potatoes -steak -broccoli -spatula" |
| 13 |
> MEAT="${DEFAULTS} -apples -potatoes +chicken -broccoli -spatula" |
| 14 |
> VEGETABLES="${DEFAULTS} -apples -steak -spatula" |
| 15 |
> MISC="${DEFAULTS}" |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Compare with: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> DEFAULTS="" |
| 20 |
> FRUIT="+apples +pears" |
| 21 |
> MEAT="+chicken +steak" |
| 22 |
> VEGETABLES="+potatoes +broccoli" |
| 23 |
> MISC="+apples -pears +potatoes -chicken +steak +broccoli +spatula" |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> One of those is stupid, regardless of what you like to eat. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The latter is cleaner than the former, there is no disagreement there. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The question to ask is who do you want to create more work for? |
| 30 |
People maintaining packages, or people maintaining profiles. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Essentially your saying IUSE defaults do not belong in a package, but in a |
| 33 |
profile. The problem is that is a hard rule to follow. What if the default |
| 34 |
benefits all, like in a base profile. Then it might make sense to add directly |
| 35 |
to ebuild than profile. But that would go against any rule/policy saying only |
| 36 |
add IUSE defaults to profiles. At the same time, if more than one profile needs |
| 37 |
that enabled by default, it is creating more work there. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
While the latter is cleaner, and therefore would seem preferred. It is not |
| 40 |
that much effort to negate a flag in a profile. That is likely time better |
| 41 |
spent. Than to have package maintainers messing with profile defaults, touching |
| 42 |
more than one profile potentially, etc. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Its probably best to have a team, familiar with profiles managing profiles. |
| 45 |
Rather than every developer working with IUSE and packages. While they may be |
| 46 |
bloated, or uglier. There isn't really a way around, short of something that |
| 47 |
bypasses default flags, allowing others to be set instead. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives