1 |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 10:52 CST, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>>> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience |
6 |
>>> changing without me changing USE-flags. I'm not against changing the name of |
7 |
>>> the USE-flag, just against changing the default behavior and applying a |
8 |
>>> bunch of patches that Core might or might not support. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> If you compare this to the kernel would it not make more sense to create |
11 |
>>> something like bitcoin-knots (vanilla-sources vs gentoo-sources)? |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Wouldn't this mean having 2^n packages if there are multiple optional |
15 |
>> patches like this available? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> No. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> The bitcoin client is a sercurity relevant packages where applying a |
20 |
> gigantic, third-party patchset isn't exactly something that should be |
21 |
> hidden behind a use flag. The comparison with the kernel sources makes a |
22 |
> lot of sense (vanilla-sources versus gentoo-sources). |
23 |
> |
24 |
> I agree that a separate ebuild for the client with knots patches is a |
25 |
> much better approach. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
The kernel doesn't give you a choice of multiple independent patch |
29 |
sets. We have just a few options that bundle many patches. You can't |
30 |
selectively turn them on and off. |
31 |
|
32 |
I'm not asking whether patching bitcoin is good or bad. |
33 |
|
34 |
I'm pointing out that if you want to do the same thing with separate |
35 |
packages that we currently do with 3 different USE flags (that I can |
36 |
see offhand), you need a total of 8 packages. If you want to make |
37 |
knots an option and it isn't one already, then make that 16. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Rich |