On 2007/07/15, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
