Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the > | > thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough > | > that they'd benefit from profile behaviour. > | > | Because maintaining your own profiles and stacking them and dealing > | with all the related mess is a _lot_ easier that sticking a + before > | foo in IUSE. Right. ;) > > You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and > ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the > behaviour of every single existing profile.
Erm, what are you talking about here? What is there to be kept in sync with profiles? > | > Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible > | > default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system > | > role. > | > | You are really circular, fix your record player :P > > That's not even remotely circular. They're profile dependent, so they > belong in the profile. There is no circular. You didn't say yet _WHY_ they are profile dependent. Repeating your statement ad nauseam won't fix your record player really. > | Defaults that makes sense in profiles can and will stay there and > | noone's damn forcing you to change it. We are talking about > | per-package (or per-ebuild even) stuff here, which is a feature that > | has been missing for ages. > > Which is solved quite happily in the profiles by package.use, and > without the problems associated with the IUSE solution. Which problems? And how is duplicating the info across various profiles easier than sticking the darned +foo into IUSE and having it sticky regardless of to whichever overlay/repo I copy the ebuild? > You know Jakub, you'd be a lot less stressed if you sat down and > thought about what was being discussed before posting. Looks to me like you are actually the only one missing the whole point of this feature. I guess I'd be a lot less stressed if you brought some arguments to the discussion instead of repeating yourself over and over again without backing up your claims in any way. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
