On 02/03/2017 01:33 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > We might as well go back to before IUSE defaults then. Part of the > advantage of IUSE defaults is maintainers don't all have to fiddle with > the profiles, everything can be self-contained in the ebuild. This > drastically complicates maintenance, having two locations to track and > change rather than just one.
You still retain the benefit for IUSE defaults that actually belong in the base profile, just not for upstream defaults or the ones that you personally prefer. > I suspect that there is a small subset > of people interested in this, and perhaps those people could maintain a > "minimal" profile that unsets IUSE defaults. Then every IUSE default gets recorded twice: once when the maintainer puts it in the ebuild, and once when I add it (negated) to the minimal profile. That's a bad design even if we pretend that I can solve the problem of tracking every IUSE change in the tree. > Also, I would just point out that the particular IUSE default that > you objected to in your original email does not really affect this > "minimalist" ideal that you seem to hold. The "hpn" USE flag on > openssh does not actually pull in any extra dependencies, it just > adds some optimizations to the network code to make it faster. > Yeah, that. OpenSSH is probably the most security-critical package on our systems. OpenSSH is maintained upstream by a talented team of security-conscious people. The HPN patch is, a) a third-party patch... b) that has been rejected by the talented security-conscious team... c) and is useless for most people. So why are we deciding for our users that they must have it?
