| 1 |
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 14:16:33 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 02:55:53PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 04/07/2018 02:44 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > |
| 6 |
>> > I'm with floppym on this one. Is there a specific reason we enable |
| 7 |
>> > them globally? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> It's a relic from before we had IUSE defaults. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> > Since there has been so little discussion on this thread, I will |
| 13 |
>> > start looking at what I need to do to remove these use flags from |
| 14 |
>> > the profiles. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> There's probably a few packages that will need IUSE defaults to avoid |
| 17 |
>> breakage, and everyone else should get fair warning before the flags |
| 18 |
>> are turned off by default. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>There is the case of packages that optionally use a db back end, |
| 21 |
>and I would argue that those may not need iuse defaults. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>It could also be argued that having one backend enabled globally is |
| 24 |
>good for consistency, but that would end up leading down a bikeshed |
| 25 |
>path that I'm not sure we should go down. I'm just not sure it makes |
| 26 |
>sense to enable more than one of these backends globally. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>Thoughts? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
>William |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Considering the questionable license situation with latest sys-libs/db |
| 34 |
releases (AGPL), I'd say we should prefer gdbm over berkdb in case we |
| 35 |
want to keep one db backend default enabled. |
| 36 |
IIRC Fedora is even trying to entirely getting rid of berkdb. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Lars |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Lars Wendler |
| 42 |
Gentoo package maintainer |
| 43 |
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93 9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39 |
Archives