On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on > > the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they > > really offer any benefit over package.use? > > Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is > recommended as the default for most users for a package??
other examples that make sense and are a pain with package.use: - local USE flags (suddenly not so local huh) - local USE flags and changing names - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >= 2.x) - developing new ebuilds for personal use - developing new ebuilds for merging into tree (btw: need to update all these other files in profiles/ instead of just committing the one ebuild) -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
