On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > > On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to
> > >> make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they
> > >> target a given version of Ubuntu. I think a patch to make them
> > >> optional might be accepted, but it probably isn't going to happen
> > >> otherwise.
> > >
> > > Another point is that too many USE flags for such a big and complex
> > > package as www-client/chromium would make testing much much harder, and
> > > create many configurations upstream would not support.
> > I'll check with upstream if that would be a huge problem for them, we
> > have 6 useflags and we'd bump them to 8. Firefox has twice of them.
> > If nobody else wants to I could have a look and see how hard is to make
> > that nicer for our non-udev/non-dbus users on linux.
> Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only
> going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core,
> base libaries of the Linux "stack".
> Yes, you can create a system without them, but in this day and age, why
> would you want to? Are you saving memory? (nope), time? (nope),
> complexity? (not really).
> Remember, you are passing the complexity of insisting that you do not
> want these things to the people managing the packages and trying to
> support the system in so many different combinations. Why someone would
> want to run Chromium on a system without udev or dbus is just looney...