rich0 at gentoo
Jul 15, 2012, 6:33 AM
Post #26 of 26
(48 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Re: RFC: remove ldap from desktop profiles use flags
[In reply to]
|
|
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic [at] gentoo> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:25:02 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh [at] googlemail> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 07:33:59 -0400
>> Rich Freeman <rich0 [at] gentoo> 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
|
