| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:24:51PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri R??ty schrieb: |
| 3 |
> > Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> In addition, i see a trend to enabled more more more USE flags (either over profiles or via IUSE |
| 5 |
> >> +flag). Whats the reason for forcing a big load of default enabled USE flags on every user including |
| 6 |
> >> more dependencies, more compile time, more wasted disk space and more possible vulnerabilities |
| 7 |
> >> except some users, who complain about a missing feature and are not able to think and enable a USE |
| 8 |
> >> flag for that feature? |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > One possible reason is that our packages should follow upstream policy |
| 12 |
> > and maybe upstreams usually like to keep things enabled rather than |
| 13 |
> > disabled. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Regards, |
| 16 |
> > Petteri |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> With that argument you could request to enable all useflags by default. Its ok in my eyes, if you |
| 21 |
> follow upstream the way tarballs are created (e.g. qt move to splitted qt packages or the other way |
| 22 |
> round). Something else would make maintainence part much harder. But i disagree on the part for |
| 23 |
> "follow upstream policy for default enabled USE flags". |
| 24 |
> Gentoo is about choice and i would like to have the choice to disable most USE flags by default and |
| 25 |
> with an easy way, e.g. by choising a profile with less default enabled USE flags. Forcing every user |
| 26 |
> to disable many or almost all flags independent of his profile would make Gentoo less userfriendly |
| 27 |
> in general without a good reason. If upstream does not want to support a disabled USE flag, they |
| 28 |
> should not offer the choice to disable it in the first place. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I think there are two issues being put together here. One is the issue |
| 31 |
of profiles enabling use flags by default, and the other is packages |
| 32 |
enabling use flags by default in IUSE. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
At the package level, I do think that we should follow the upstream |
| 35 |
policy. Upstream giving you the option to disable something doesn't |
| 36 |
mean that they don't support disabling it, it just means that they are |
| 37 |
giving you the choice to disable it. If it is enabled by default, it |
| 38 |
could mean that upstream has found that most of their users prefer to |
| 39 |
enable it, so they set it up that way. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
To me, the question really is at the profile level since enabling use |
| 42 |
flags there has the potential to affect entire systems. I don't think |
| 43 |
flags should be enabled at the profile level unless we are sure that |
| 44 |
most users who use that profile will want the flags enabled. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
William Hubbs |
| 48 |
gentoo accessibility team lead |
| 49 |
williamh@g.o |
Archives