On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:25:02 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 6 May 2012 07:33:59 -0400 >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > Some other questionable ones: >> > emboss - Adds support for the European Molecular Biology Open >> >> We've had this discussion before... The question is not "are people >> likely to want emboss?". The question is "of people who use packages >> that have an emboss use flag, are those people likely to want emboss?". > > The question is "why aren't those packages using IUSE="+emboss" instead of > cluttering up the profiles with obscure USE flags?".
Agreed, IF anybody using that package is likely to want that flag on any profile. Package defaults are good for the case when anybody using that package on any profile is likely to want that flag. Profile defaults are good for the case when anybody using that profile is across-the-board likely to want or not want that flag. In the case of emboss setting it (or not) at the package level would seem to make sense. I can't see how having support for some particular scientific application suite is going to vary depending on whether the package is installed on a desktop vs server, or with hardened vs non-hardened. I could see overriding it on hardened making sense if it didn't build on that profile. Rich
