Re: Re: Anti-features

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Anna Vyalkova <[email protected]> writes:

> On 2026-07-31, Sam James wrote:
>>> What if instead of only marking slop packages, it will be possible to=20
>>> mark all anti-features[0]? So users could be warned not only about=20
>>> slop packages, but also about non-free network services, bundled=20
>>> dependencies and other practices discouraged by Gentoo's high quality=20
>>> standards.
>>>
>>> This can be done either in profiles or in the ebuild itself. The term=20
>>> "anti-feature" is generic and future-proof.
>>=20
>> Well, IMO, the most important part of the discussion was how to handle
>> the marking and the UX around that. I set out a few options in my email.
>
> I think it doesn't need to be implemented directly in Portage and could=20
> be a third-party service as well. Submissions could be made by users=20
> themselves and approved by maintainers (for example, by replying to a=20
> confirmation e-mail).
>
> Integration with Portage could be as simple as maintaining a file in=20
> /etc/portage/package.mask/.

Perhaps in a way like Matt's app-portage/no-distcc-env.

>
> If anyone is interested, let's collaborate.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEBBAEWCgCpFiEEJaa7iN2bdkxrVUHCc4QJ9SDfkZAFAmpuCMkbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQyNUE2QkI4OEREOUI3NjRDNkI1NTQx
QzI3Mzg0MDlGNTIwREY5MTkwDxxzYW1AZ2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRBzhAn1IN+RkMul
APsE23gRoeAPwGd7dLcOrl1nczpcoQuqLFvAIzt/QbNbzQEAg0K1Ld9rw5aLg8SN
/QrsNxdrcsA5sTLAtCUQfvwc6AQ=
=zs2X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--