| 1 |
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to |
| 6 |
> > >> make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they |
| 7 |
> > >> target a given version of Ubuntu. I think a patch to make them |
| 8 |
> > >> optional might be accepted, but it probably isn't going to happen |
| 9 |
> > >> otherwise. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > Another point is that too many USE flags for such a big and complex |
| 12 |
> > > package as www-client/chromium would make testing much much harder, and |
| 13 |
> > > create many configurations upstream would not support. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I'll check with upstream if that would be a huge problem for them, we |
| 16 |
> > have 6 useflags and we'd bump them to 8. Firefox has twice of them. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > If nobody else wants to I could have a look and see how hard is to make |
| 19 |
> > that nicer for our non-udev/non-dbus users on linux. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only |
| 22 |
> going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core, |
| 23 |
> base libaries of the Linux "stack". |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Yes, you can create a system without them, but in this day and age, why |
| 26 |
> would you want to? Are you saving memory? (nope), time? (nope), |
| 27 |
> complexity? (not really). |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Remember, you are passing the complexity of insisting that you do not |
| 30 |
> want these things to the people managing the packages and trying to |
| 31 |
> support the system in so many different combinations. Why someone would |
| 32 |
> want to run Chromium on a system without udev or dbus is just looney... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
s/Chromium/Chrome/ |
Archives