On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> > >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide > >> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, > >> because you will break all of the packages whose defaults are either > >> critical to the package, or prevent a REQUIRED_USE conflict. > >> > > > > OK, can we all decide out of this thread, that if any package is > > enabling critical functionality via IUSE-defaults (or rather, IUSE > > defaults alone), that this be addressed through package.use.force in > > profiles OR through removal of the flag? > > No.
Can this be justified a little more? If a package is broken when a given flag is disabled, why is it not acceptable to not provide the flag? If the flag is still provided for the sake of user choice, why is it unacceptable to force it through package.use.force allowing the majority of users to not need to worry, and letting advanced users break their egg in their quest for an omelette? How is this different (for example, not pointing fingers) from dev-lang/python[threads] being forced because it's broken without it (therefore critical functionality)? Disclaimer: not trying to be argumentative, just trying understand the arguments. :) -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG Key: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
