| 1 |
On 7/12/21 10:30 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Matt Turner wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>> If you can find a case where you wouldn't want to enable one of these |
| 4 |
>>>> USE flags, please let me know and I'll reconsider my position. |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> My catalyst spec files all have use: -* foo bar x y z |
| 7 |
>>> specifically because the defaults are never what I want for any given |
| 8 |
>>> system. I build desktops, servers, containers, VM appliance images and |
| 9 |
>>> embedded system, and I know what I want in each one. Especially the |
| 10 |
>>> latter frequently have only very few USE flags set and I want zero |
| 11 |
>>> extra dependencies. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I think you're making a great argument that you'd be completely |
| 14 |
>> unaffected by any of the suggestions in this thread. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I don't consider needing "use: -*" at all a desirable situation. This |
| 17 |
> catalyst warning might support that: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Warning!!! |
| 20 |
> The use of -* in $stage/use will cause portage to ignore |
| 21 |
> package.use in the profile and portage_confdir. You've been warned! |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I see it as a shortcoming of the standard profiles that I have to |
| 25 |
> essentially create my own in order to get what I want, as opposed |
| 26 |
> to being able to build upon something truly minimal. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>>>> I'd claim most of these packages' bzip2/lzma/zstd USE flags should |
| 30 |
>>>> be removed in favor of statically enabling them |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> That is the direct opposite of Gentoo's single most core value: choice |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> Choice makes sense when there's a legitimate trade-off to be made. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> I explained that and why I frequently do not want those USE flags set, |
| 37 |
> demonstrating that I want choice here. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> You can of course dismiss any concern which disagrees with your opinion as |
| 40 |
> illegitimate. Please do not bother asking questions if that's your style. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
>> Choice isn't dogma. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Is there a difference between dogma and value? I understand choice to be |
| 46 |
> a core value in Gentoo. Maybe that's wrong (now)? Core values are more |
| 47 |
> important than pretty much anything else. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Choice isn't always possible. That's not this case. If choice is indeed |
| 50 |
> a core value then where choice is pretty easy (this case) in my mind |
| 51 |
> there needs to be an overwhelmingly strong argument to conciously and |
| 52 |
> intentionally disable choice. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
>>> Just don't do it. Kthx. |
| 56 |
>> |
| 57 |
>> This kind of thing is nothing but irritating. Please don't do this. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that "Just don't do it. Kthx." meant |
| 60 |
> exactly what you wrote: |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> This kind of thing (increase default USE-flags) is nothing but irritating. |
| 63 |
> Please don't do this. |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> Kind regards |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> //Peter |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
Hi Peter, |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Nobody is "disabling choice" here, a change in defaults doesn't remove |
| 73 |
your ability to choose something else. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
And I understand your sentiment that adding more default-on flags goes |
| 76 |
against YOUR goals of a minimal gentoo, but I'd like to remind you and |
| 77 |
others that this minimalism is not the goal of every gentoo user. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
More default features might irritate you and other minimalists, but it |
| 80 |
may significantly improve the gentoo experiences of everyone else. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
I want to be clear that I'm not saying you are wrong, but remember that |
| 83 |
your perspective is not the only correct one on this topic. |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
-Ben |
Archives