Anti-features (was: Dealing with (potential) slop packages)

On 2026-03-10, Filip Kobierski wrote:
> Maybe one could flag slop packages with a LICENSE variable that is not 
> accepted by default?
> That would allow users to still have the final say in what can run on their Gentoo systems but would be aware that AI-SLOP license is suboptimal.
> Then I imagine the problem would be in marking packages as such...
> Also the name of the "LICENSE"; AI-SLOP seems in-line with Gentoo's approach, alas I in my opinion is unprofessional. Plain AI does not really sound discouraging. Naming is a secondary issue though.

I'd like to revive this discussion.

What if instead of only marking slop packages, it will be possible to 
mark all anti-features[0]? So users could be warned not only about slop 
packages, but also about non-free network services, bundled dependencies 
and other practices discouraged by Gentoo's high quality standards.

This can be done either in profiles or in the ebuild itself. The term 
"anti-feature" is generic and future-proof.

Although at first most packages would have unknown anti-feature status, 
so it will need years to become actually useful.

[0]: https://monitor.f-droid.org/anti-features