| 1 |
> On 2 Jan 2022, at 04:28, Blake Bartenbach <blakebartenbach@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Sat Jan 1, 2022 at 4:21 PM CST, Piotr Karbowski wrote: |
| 4 |
>> The thing is, it's 2022, and it does not make any sense to *not* support |
| 5 |
>> IPv6, even if one does not connect to any network with IPv6, there's no |
| 6 |
>> harm to just have it there. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This kind of logic goes down a slippery slope very quickly though. |
| 10 |
> "There's no harm to just have it there" kind of defeats the purpose of a |
| 11 |
> configurable operating system. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yeah, agreed on that part. We can't really deny that Gentoo is |
| 14 |
the home of tweakers and ricers, even if we have other types of user too. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The main aim should be to avoid complexity in ebuilds and invalid |
| 17 |
bug reports. Masking/forcing on flags as appropriate avoids |
| 18 |
most of these issues. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
But on IPv6, please see my other post. If we have to use an autoconf |
| 21 |
cache variable to force IPv6 off, that suggests it's probably not even |
| 22 |
a supported configuration upstream. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>> Beside 'ipv6', there are other USE flags that I have on mind. 'pam' |
| 26 |
>> being another of them. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Well, I'm not sure about the pam one. The only USE flag that |
| 30 |
> consistently baffles me is 'X'. It really does not seem to have a well |
| 31 |
> defined definition, and it seems to do different things with different |
| 32 |
> packages. For the longest time, I had that flag globally disabled, but |
| 33 |
> used X and almost every package worked totally fine. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Somewhat related: we've started moving to USE=gui to help |
| 37 |
the situation a bit. See https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/use-flags.html#pg0802 <https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/use-flags.html#pg0802>. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Best, |
| 40 |
sam |
Archives