Re: [gentoo-dev] Stupid USE defaults that need cleaning

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1718 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:10:04AM -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> >>3) there is _no_ functionality added by any of this, only
> >>"user-friendliness" after a fashion, and as such, perhaps it should all
> >>be chucked in favor of having users competently declare their own global
> >>USE flags during the install, however I doubt that'll get very far. *shrug*

You're ignoring the ability to specify additions to the system set; 
use flags aren't going to help there.


> >4) need for the ability to inherit multiple parent profiles.
> >
> >Otherwise, x86 desktop profile is not guranteed in anyway to reflect 
> >sparc desktop profile (yes, somewhat the case now).
> >
> >A gnome desktop profile would make sense imo, but from a work 
> >standpoint is totally dependant on ability to inherit multiple 
> >parents.
> >
> How close is that ability to portage? Is there interest/room for
> help/work towards it?

30 minute patch if people want it (line 999 of portage.py from trunk 
is the area of modification required).

Due to current code, would need to either educate users, or come up 
with some way to make existing code puke when working with N parents- 
right now the code automatically ignores any other entries in the 
parent file (badddddddd design choice).


> I would like to see a more sensible approach to
> establishing default settings (USE flags not the only thing here).

IUSE defaults; specifying the use defaults within the ebuild itself 
(search the -dev archives for it, spanky brought it to the ml iirc).

IUSE defaults is not a 30 minute patch.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]