From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IA3du-0000Rx-5N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:56:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6FCtCHa014383; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:55:12 GMT Received: from corwin.easynet.fr (smarthost157.mail.easynet.fr [212.180.1.157]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6FCrKoQ011933 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:53:20 GMT Received: from easyconnect2121138-64.clients.easynet.fr ([212.11.38.64] helo=eusebe) by corwin.easynet.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IA3bD-0005hV-Ud for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:53:20 +0200 Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:53:12 +0200 From: Thomas de Grenier de Latour To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example Message-ID: <20070715145312.7a120ffe@eusebe> In-Reply-To: <20070715135720.689a621b.genone@gentoo.org> References: <20070710045824.GA6673@linux1> <200707101630.42100.vapier@gentoo.org> <20070710224711.2e52dc11@eusebe> <200707101732.18124.vapier@gentoo.org> <20070715115308.71cc8b16@eusebe> <20070715135720.689a621b.genone@gentoo.org> Organization: Fasmz X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.10.0 (GTK+ 2.10.13; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b8e70a56-ea0c-4697-a252-d46cd1c2ad8a X-Archives-Hash: ec6bc194fde782a95a2690a99dc7d67a On 2007/07/15, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200 > Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > > > My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER > > that have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case > > appart (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely > > shared, i can live with that), there is still a problem with -* in > > make.defaults files: the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to > > IUSE="+cxx", will you remember that, as a consequence, you have to > > fix hardened/2.6/minimal profile? > > Well, it's just like any other renaming of USE flags in that regard. But it shows that the "we shouldn't care about per-ebuild defaults in profiles" argument doesn't really stand, which is unfortunate because Mike is probaly right that it would have been a good thing. > And while I can see why people would want IUSE defaults to have a > higher priority than USE in make.defaults and/or make.conf, I suspect > the vast majority of users would get completely lost in finding out > where a flag was enabled/disabled (the current system is already > confusing to a lot of people until they get a detailed explanation). I don't think it's something which would be that hard to explain to users. All it takes is having "emerge -pv" to clearly shows that something unusual is happening when a flag value is overidden by an IUSE-default, for instance with an exclamation mark suffix, and to document that in the man page, with the rest of the --verbose output: ! suffix = profile's global default value for this flag is overidden by an ebuild-specific setting. You can still enable / disable it in your own configuration (make.conf or package.use) if you really want to. Maybe i am over-estimating the average user, but to me it doesn't sound that complicated or obscure. -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list