1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> --- Comment #2 from Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> 2011-06-21 09:35:59 UTC --- |
4 |
>> Afaik, the bash-completion eclass adds the use flag only to make |
5 |
>> sure the user has bash-completion and eselect packages installed. |
6 |
>> This is imho overkill and it indeed meets the point that was made |
7 |
>> on the ml that installing one file that doesn't in itself depends |
8 |
>> on anything doesn't warrant a USE flag. Maybe the discussion should |
9 |
>> be brought to dev ML to make the situation clearer for |
10 |
>> bash-completion too. |
11 |
|
12 |
> OK let's hear from the ML. Another good thing from bash-completion |
13 |
> eclass is that it advertises bash-completion in pkg_postinst (though |
14 |
> some packages miss this). If we're OK for dev-libs/glib not to use |
15 |
> bash-completion use flag, what about the others, drop the use flag? |
16 |
|
17 |
With the flag, some additional files are installed _and_ additional |
18 |
dependencies like app-shells/bash-completion (which will pull in |
19 |
further dependencies) are required. Looks like a perfect case for a |
20 |
USE flag to me. For example, users of embedded systems may not want to |
21 |
install such additional packages. |
22 |
|
23 |
Ulrich |