| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Mathy Vanvoorden <mathy@××××××××××.be> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> 2017-03-06 15:53 GMT+01:00 Anthony G. Basile <basile@××××××××××.net>: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Bitcoin Knots includes a number of enhancements users may find useful. I |
| 6 |
>> think it would be a good idea to make it the default for Bitcoin |
| 7 |
>> ebuilds (net-p2p/bitcoin-qt, net-p2p/bitcoind, and dev-util/bitcoin-tx). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience |
| 11 |
> changing without me changing USE-flags. I'm not against changing the name of |
| 12 |
> the USE-flag, just against changing the default behavior and applying a |
| 13 |
> bunch of patches that Core might or might not support. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If you compare this to the kernel would it not make more sense to create |
| 16 |
> something like bitcoin-knots (vanilla-sources vs gentoo-sources)? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Wouldn't this mean having 2^n packages if there are multiple optional |
| 20 |
patches like this available? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I could see the argument for bitcoin-vanilla and bitcoin-gentoo, |
| 23 |
assuming somebody wanted to maintain bitcoin-vanilla. bitcoin-gentoo |
| 24 |
would just be the current bitcoin ebuild in the tree. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives