On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:11:20PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> > OK, can we all decide out of this thread, that if any package is > >> > enabling critical functionality via IUSE-defaults (or rather, IUSE > >> > defaults alone), that this be addressed through package.use.force in > >> > profiles OR through removal of the flag? > >> > >> No. > > > > Can this be justified a little more? > > > > If a package is broken when a given flag is disabled, why is it not > > acceptable to not provide the flag? > > Perhaps the issue is the definition of "critical functionality." > > I may have interpreted it differently than intended. > > If setting a flag one way or the other results in a package that has > no useful purpose then I certainly agree that this shouldn't be a flag > in the first place. When certain combinations result in > non-functional packages these should be caught as well (via > REQUIRED_USE), though in really complex packages with many flags this > may sometimes be difficult to spot. > > On the other hand, I believe it should be acceptable to use IUSE > defaults to configure a package to provide an ideal experience for the > typical user of the package, or align with upstream. Non-upstream > patches that aren't related to integration are pushing it, but merely > providing an upstream-like default experience should be the goal for > anybody who doesn't override this one way or the other. > > My brevity wasn't intended to be rude. I've just posted extensively > enough in this thread and didn't want to just re-iterate my previous > emails, and so so above for clarity.
Ah, this makes sense to me - IUSE defaults being a kind of soft "new to Gentoo" or "minimal effort for common usage" setup, REQUIRED_USE to prevent bad combinations, and package.use.force for known breakages with individual flags. Thanks for the clarification. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG Key: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
