On Friday, February 3, 2017 2:53:59 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > 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.
That is a side effect, as it is more about the package maintainer choosing the defaults. They are not messing with profiles. That base ends up with it is indirect. Otherwise IUSE default flags would have to be per profile rather than in the package. Which would create more work for package maintainers. > > 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. Sorry if its been suggested, I haven't followed every comment. What about some global env variable that could override all default IUSE. That can set in base, and set what ever minimal IUSE flags that are needed. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
