Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/09/2017 12:59 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/09/2017 03:41 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> That's a great question. Based on a cursory look at make.conf's manpage, >> USE_ORDER without 'pkginternal' will ignore IUSE defaults as intended. >> > > This has already been suggested like five

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/09/2017 03:41 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > That's a great question. Based on a cursory look at make.conf's manpage, > USE_ORDER without 'pkginternal' will ignore IUSE defaults as intended. > This has already been suggested like five times =P So long as people insist on using IUSE defaults

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/09/2017 12:25 PM, Ben Kohler wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: > > I support the idea of a profile-set variable that determines whether or > not IUSE is respected. Minimalists get their systems faster,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I support the idea of a profile-set variable that determines whether or > not IUSE is respected. Minimalists get their systems faster, we get > something that adds to Gentoo's versatility and an additional profile. > Of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 02:09 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 2:53:59 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 02/03/2017 01:33 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: >>> We might as well go back to before IUSE defaults then. Part of the >>> advantage of IUSE defaults is maintainers don't all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:11:20PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > >> > OK,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > OK, can we all decide out of this thread, that if any package is >> > enabling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> > >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide > >> when they are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 07/02/17 12:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide >>> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide >> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, >> because you will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to >> decide when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" >> from USE_ORDER, because you will break all of the packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide > when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, > because you will break all of the packages whose defaults are either > critical to the package, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/07/2017 02:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are > purely advisory for the package manager: > > "[...] any use flag name in IUSE may be prefixed by at most one of a > plus or a minus sign. If such a prefix is present, the package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

W dniu 07.02.2017, wto o godzinie 21∶20 +1300, użytkownik Kent Fredric napisał: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:52:06 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are > > purely advisory for the package manager: > > > > "[...] any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:52:06 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are > purely advisory for the package manager: > > "[...] any use flag name in IUSE may be prefixed by at most one of a > plus or a minus sign. If such a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

> On Thu, 02 Feb 2017, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > A bigger problem arises from #3 and #4: it's no longer simple to get > a minimal system. When various USE flags default on at random, you > get users doing things like USE="-*". We can tell them not to do > that, because of the flags in #1, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 16:05:50 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > Putting increased requirements on the maintainers may be demotivating, and > create other problems. New profile added they are not aware of. Now they have > to go add IUSE defaults etc. There are a fair

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 7:14:45 AM EST Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:44:38 -0500 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > The question to ask is who do you want to create more work for? > > People maintaining packages, or people maintaining profiles. > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:44:38 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > The question to ask is who do you want to create more work for? > People maintaining packages, or people maintaining profiles. I would probably say "yes" to both of those, because the main objective here is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 9:57:01 AM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 08:07 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > I think the current policy of "maintainer's discretion" is probably the > > only reasonable way to approach IUSE defaults... > > > > Leaving the IUSE defaults up to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 08:07 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > I think the current policy of "maintainer's discretion" is probably the > only reasonable way to approach IUSE defaults... > > Leaving the IUSE defaults up to the maintainer allows said maintainer > to select what they consider reasonable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:59:34 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 03/02/17 02:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 02/03/2017 10:30 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > >> ok you lost me. Could you provide an explicit example of what you > >> would want to see enabled in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 03/02/17 02:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 10:30 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> ok you lost me. Could you provide an explicit example of what you >> would want to see enabled in the profile (while everything else is >> disabled) that you don't get when USE="-*" is set? > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:01:54 -0600 Gordon Pettey wrote: > If you want to keep this kind of thing in the ebuilds, IUSE="+blah" doesn't > allow any granularity. Another variable USE_PROFILE should be added > analogue to DEPENDS: > IUSE="gnome-keyring gtk-theme kwallet

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Friday, February 3, 2017 2:53:59 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 01:33 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > We might as well go back to before IUSE defaults then. Part of the > > advantage of IUSE defaults is maintainers don't all have to fiddle with > > the profiles, everything can be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 01:33 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > We might as well go back to before IUSE defaults then. Part of the > advantage of IUSE defaults is maintainers don't all have to fiddle with > the profiles, everything can be self-contained in the ebuild. This > drastically complicates

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 10:30 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > ok you lost me. Could you provide an explicit example of what you > would want to see enabled in the profile (while everything else is > disabled) that you don't get when USE="-*" is set? USE="hardened pax_kernel ..." > > It's sounding more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 12:39 PM, james wrote: So imagine flags are a giant 'sparse matrix' that I need to 'mollify' individually periodically, then run CI on that complete-set of packages, and then test against automated attack vectors. So, were we to want to 'enhance' flag representation from a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:43:50 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 08:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > >> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists > >> who don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in > >> pursuit of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 01:12 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:01:52PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote Is there a better way we can have our cake and eat it too? I'll admit that a huge package.use on the minimal profile isn't a whole lot better than a huge package.use on all the other

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 03/02/17 08:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/03/2017 08:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> >>> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists who >>> don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in pursuit >>> of "minimalism" we just strive to make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/03/2017 08:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> How about rather changing our defaults to satisfy the minimalists who >> don't mind drastically reduced functionality and usability in pursuit >> of "minimalism" we just strive to make USE="-*" mostly usable, so the >> minimalists can get what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/17 10:14 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky >>> wrote: If (base == minimal), then

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/17 08:21 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 06:41 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. >> >> On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: >>> " >>> I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:01:52PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote > Is there a better way we can have our cake and eat it too? I'll admit > that a huge package.use on the minimal profile isn't a whole lot > better than a huge package.use on all the other profiles. > > Do we need another form of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:16 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: > > There are people who run servers on Gentoo, and don't particularly want > minimalism, then want a normal Linux system level of functionality (ie > upstream and/or sane defaults) without having to add dozens of USE > flags to random packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:06:33 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > > > Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, > > starts building their system. They start installing packages they > > want, only to find that half of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:40:38 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky > > wrote: > >> > >> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be > >> added to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:31 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > The desktop profile is going to do things like enable X11 support by > default. It isn't going to do things like enable bzip support in > ffmpeg (but not the new experimental codec that causes it to crash 25% > of the time, but which apparently

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:26:20PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:22 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > > > Also, how would this work with local USE flags as opposed to global > > flags? Would they be acceptable to have IUSE defaults? > > > > Exactly the same way as global flags: drop

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: >> >> Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts >> building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to >> find that half of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:22 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > Also, how would this work with local USE flags as opposed to global > flags? Would they be acceptable to have IUSE defaults? > Exactly the same way as global flags: drop an entry in the desktop profile's package.use.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:06:33PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > > > Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts > > building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to > > find that half of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added >>> to package.use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:00 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > Consider: a new user, coming from Ubuntu or Fedora or Windows, starts > building their system. They start installing packages they want, only to > find that half of the package isn't there because no USE flags were > enabled. They have to enable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:11:26AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: > > 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. > > * Example: force the "unix" module for apache. Why provide a flag for something that is required anyway? And if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added >> to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, > > I'll go further and say that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 06:41 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. > > On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: >> " >> I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, >> only that the base profile should result in an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:28 PM, james wrote: > On 02/02/2017 04:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> The problem is the new user experience. When somebody is new to >> Gentoo and not super-knowledgeable the first thing they're going to do >> is set up a desktop. Now, they might

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > > If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added > > to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 12:35 PM, james wrote: > On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added >>> to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

Responding here instead of the first time it was posted, just 'cause. On 02/02/17 06:35 PM, james wrote: > " > I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, > only that the base profile should result in an effectively-minimal set > of USE flags. Adding IUSE defaults is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 04:40 PM, David Seifert wrote: On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 15:35 -0500, james wrote: On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 04:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM, james wrote: I think that unikernels are something everyone should be aware of as they purport to be the latest trend in securing all sorts of systems. (a brief read). Not really for all sorts,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I'm not saying that we should have a minimal experience out-of-the-box, > only that the base profile should result in an effectively-minimal set > of USE flags. Adding IUSE defaults is essentially adding defaults to the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:35 PM, james wrote: > > I think that unikernels are something everyone should be aware of > as they purport to be the latest trend in securing all sorts of systems. > (a brief read). > Not really for all sorts, more for servers. Otherwise I get it,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, I'll go further and say that it is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > If (base == minimal), then all of the upstream defaults need to be added > to package.use for the upstream-defaults profile. That's bad, I'll go further and say that it is unacceptably bad. > but if > (base ==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 12:23 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:11:26AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote > >> 2 To avoid an unsatisfied REQUIRED_USE by default. >> >> * Example: having a non-empty RUBY_TARGETS by default. > > What's wrong with having emerge spit out an error

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:11:26AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote > 2 To avoid an unsatisfied REQUIRED_USE by default. > > * Example: having a non-empty RUBY_TARGETS by default. What's wrong with having emerge spit out an error message, and telling the user that they need to set a flag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 11:08 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Which is simpler, a minimal profile that sets USE=-* and then lists a > few exceptions where that breaks in package.use, or an upstream > defaults profile (which becomes the basis for all the other profiles) > that has a 5000 line package.use file

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > The upstream defaults would > build on top of the minimal base profile, in plain old package.use. In > the profile is exactly where the upstream defaults belong in an > "upstream defaults" profile. > > I think (base ==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:06 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally guilty of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:52 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) >> on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in >> the base one. > > The base profile

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:36:51 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/02/2017 10:06 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally > >> guilty of #3 and #4, but I now

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Why does dev-java/icedtea try to pull in GTK (and thus X) > on a headless server? That stuff belongs in a desktop profile, not in > the base one. The base profile isn't "headless server" - it is just generic. Somebody

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 09:56 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Michael Orlitzky >> wrote: >> >> IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: >> >> 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. >> >> * Example: force the "unix" module for apache. >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 10:06 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally guilty >> of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see >> explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:06:02 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally > > guilty of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see > > explanations in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

On 02/02/2017 03:11 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Can we discourage IUSE defaults except for #1 and #2? I'm equally guilty > of #3 and #4, but I now regret them. I would also like to see > explanations in metadata.xml of why +flags are on by default. This presumes that the goal is minimal system

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: > > 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. > >* Example: force the "unix" module for apache. > This is not what IUSE defaults are for, this should be

[gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

IUSE defaults are used in a few different ways: 1 To ensure that critical functionality is enabled. * Example: force the "unix" module for apache. 2 To avoid an unsatisfied REQUIRED_USE by default. * Example: having a non-empty RUBY_TARGETS by default. 3 To make Gentoo defaults