On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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: > >> > 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?
Perhaps the issue is the definition of "critical functionality." I may have interpreted it differently than intended. If setting a flag one way or the other results in a package that has no useful purpose then I certainly agree that this shouldn't be a flag in the first place. When certain combinations result in non-functional packages these should be caught as well (via REQUIRED_USE), though in really complex packages with many flags this may sometimes be difficult to spot. On the other hand, I believe it should be acceptable to use IUSE defaults to configure a package to provide an ideal experience for the typical user of the package, or align with upstream. Non-upstream patches that aren't related to integration are pushing it, but merely providing an upstream-like default experience should be the goal for anybody who doesn't override this one way or the other. My brevity wasn't intended to be rude. I've just posted extensively enough in this thread and didn't want to just re-iterate my previous emails, and so so above for clarity. -- Rich
