Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:25:42 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| > The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change,
| > the only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour
| > is subprofiles. With IUSE defaults, the person making the change
| > will also have to do a sanity check over the entire tree.
|
| Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are you
| talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of this
| feature?
Before changing default values for USE flags, arch and release people
have to make sure that that change won't do something nasty like
introduce circular or built_with_use deps into the default system
resolution.
I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things.
If I change default USE in my ebuild; I have to do sanity checks. If I
change default USE in the profile; I have to do sanity checks *in that
profile*.
So if your argument is that it's cheaper to check just N profiles ( the
profiles affected by my change ) versus all available profiles; then I
agree with you on that point.
However I still believe there exist examples where default USE in an
ebuild is a better solution.
--
[email protected] mailing list
