Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: > 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)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/profiles $ cat base/package.use # This file requires >=portage-2.1.2 (see bug #61732) # Strongly recommended, otherwise all logos, icons, etc. appear in b/w. app-editors/emacs xpm app-editors/emacs-cvs xpm Seems local to me... > - local USE flags and changing names Normally you would only have to change base/package.use > - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >= 2.x) package.use should accept version atoms > - developing new ebuilds for personal use /etc/portage/package.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 base/package.use Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
