Re: Re: Anti-features

[2026-08-01 15:55:05+0100] Sam James:
>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
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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
>> be a third-party service as well. Submissions could be made by users
>> themselves and approved by maintainers (for example, by replying to a
>> confirmation e-mail).
>>
>> Integration with Portage could be as simple as maintaining a file in
>> /etc/portage/package.mask/.
>
>Perhaps in a way like Matt's app-portage/no-distcc-env.

Yeah, that sounds like a quite nice way of doing it.
And seems like package.unmask takes priority, so users could override
a single package if needed.

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