[gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're looking to cut out use.defaults support existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will continue to carry support for this, but some of you stable users may notice some USE flags suddenly "disappearing"

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Kalin KOZHUHAROV
Mike Frysinger wrote: > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're > looking to cut out use.defaults support > > existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will continue to > carry support for this, but some of you stable users may notice some US

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're > looking to cut out use.defaults support > > existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will continue to > carry support for this, but s

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 13 January 2006 11:15, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: > Or is it because I always had: > USE="-* ${MY_USE}" > in /etc/make.conf? yes -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 13 January 2006 11:15, Wernfried Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will > > continue to carry support for this, but some of you stable users may > > notice some USE > > flags sudde

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're > looking to cut out use.defaults support Could you add a USE_ORDER without "auto" to /etc/make.globals for that release, please, or alternatively provide s

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Alec Joseph Warner
Can we get this on the website/announce? I agree that auto-use is the suck and that it needs to die a long excrutiating death, but I think a lot of users will be like wtf when 2.1 hits stable and --newuse turns up a massive crapload of packages. Whether this announced now, or when portage-2.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Lares Moreau
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 13:26 -0500, Alec Joseph Warner wrote: > but I think a > lot of users will be like wtf when 2.1 hits stable and --newuse turns > up > a massive crapload of packages. Could we include a simple script to add these USE to the users make.conf before they upgrade to 2.1. Witho

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 13 January 2006 12:49, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, > > we're looking to cut out use.defaults support > > Could you add a USE_ORDER without "auto" to /etc/ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread solar
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 06:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're > looking to cut out use.defaults support I see this as a good and bad thing. Good in one hand that less autojunk would be enabled like python/perl bindings not b

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:02 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | The autouse itself is not a bad feature or idea if it were used properly. | Problem is that it's not been used properly. No, it's bad. It's another thing that makes correct dependency resolution impossible. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread solar
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 20:23 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:02 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | The autouse itself is not a bad feature or idea if it were used properly. > | Problem is that it's not been used properly. > > No, it's bad. It's another thing that m

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:50:08 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 20:23 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:02 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | The autouse itself is not a bad feature or idea if it were used | > | properly. Problem is th

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Alec Joseph Warner
IMHO a lot of the auto-use stuff that is "mis-used" is moreso what IUSE defaults is for. I have a crappy patch for IUSE defaults that I may try to work on so that it can be merged in the 2.1/2.2 branch. I realize that this is probably a bit far off, but will hopefully improve the situation.

Re: [gentoo-dev] pending dooooooom of use.defaults

2006-01-13 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 13 January 2006 15:13, solar wrote: > On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 06:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, > > we're looking to cut out use.defaults support > > I see this as a good and bad thing. Good in one hand that less auto