Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:23:23 +0200
Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway?
[ ] You get the meaning of "analogy". No, this has nothing to do with
"anal".
There is no analogy to be made there. Arguing against carrying profile
metadata in IUSE is trying to prevent a design decision, not trying to
work around one by forcing extra work on people.
I don't think anyone is arguing *against* it (at least I'm not!); just
that it is not the solution in all cases.
Placing the default USE flags all in the profiles amounts to profile
duplication where-ever you want to use the ebuilds -> this is annoying.
Placing the default USE flags all in the ebuilds (with NO profiles
support) means that when I go off and make my own Gentoo; I get to
modify thousands of ebuilds to set my defaults properly.
Both ways suck.
Hence we combine them to get a realistic result.
A "naked" ebuild should *just work*; if upstream GCC provides fortran
and libstdc++; then the ebuild should provide fortran and libstdc++
*by default* with no profiles.
Most other cases are what I would call "distribution tinkering."
We (as the primary distributor of our own tree) muck around in our
profiles setting certain flags so that stuff works on more systems and
in a saner fashion.
So that I DON'T need to emerge kde-meta only to find that I needed QT
with opengl support. It's a USE dep; it's not as easily representable
in a default IUSE format; but it's relatively easy to add opengl to QT's
default use in a profile and say "KDE requires qt with openGL support
and most of our QT users are KDE users." There exists a qualifier
there; that Users exist and provided feedback.
-Alec Warner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
