Am Montag, 16. Oktober 2006 00:59 schrieb Alec Warner: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > | > > | 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.
>From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain. Ciaran has a point here: Default useflags have annoyed me in the past while building releases, and having to change several packages (and redigesting them) for the snapshot is way more: * complicated * time-consuming * error-prone than changing them in the profiles directory. Chris: I'd like to have your thoughts on this. Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- [email protected] mailing list
