| 1 |
Petteri Räty schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 3 |
>> In addition, i see a trend to enabled more more more USE flags (either over profiles or via IUSE |
| 4 |
>> +flag). Whats the reason for forcing a big load of default enabled USE flags on every user including |
| 5 |
>> more dependencies, more compile time, more wasted disk space and more possible vulnerabilities |
| 6 |
>> except some users, who complain about a missing feature and are not able to think and enable a USE |
| 7 |
>> flag for that feature? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> One possible reason is that our packages should follow upstream policy |
| 11 |
> and maybe upstreams usually like to keep things enabled rather than |
| 12 |
> disabled. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Regards, |
| 15 |
> Petteri |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
With that argument you could request to enable all useflags by default. Its ok in my eyes, if you |
| 20 |
follow upstream the way tarballs are created (e.g. qt move to splitted qt packages or the other way |
| 21 |
round). Something else would make maintainence part much harder. But i disagree on the part for |
| 22 |
"follow upstream policy for default enabled USE flags". |
| 23 |
Gentoo is about choice and i would like to have the choice to disable most USE flags by default and |
| 24 |
with an easy way, e.g. by choising a profile with less default enabled USE flags. Forcing every user |
| 25 |
to disable many or almost all flags independent of his profile would make Gentoo less userfriendly |
| 26 |
in general without a good reason. If upstream does not want to support a disabled USE flag, they |
| 27 |
should not offer the choice to disable it in the first place. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives