Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Rationalizing USE flags by narrowing the scope of them.
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2022 12:07:05
Message-Id: AI352CV3.VBV6Q23N.5RHJMMKY@FBNYML4Z.OQNF7IQY.WHGF65DX
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Rationalizing USE flags by narrowing the scope of them. by Sam James
1 On 2022.01.02 07:33, Sam James wrote:
2 >
3 [snip]
4
5 > Note that having USE flags for things, even if forced on/masked (for
6 > the opposite case) is useful for building embedded systems. So, if you
7 > wanted to go this route, a sensible
8 > first step would actually be forcing PAM on. But I don't think PAM is
9 > a candidate for dropping.
10 >
11 > While I think it's hard to run a modern desktop system without it,
12 > there are a fair number of people who do still run -pam and I don't
13 > think
14 > breaking it for the sake of it is a good idea. They already know there
15 > be dragons.
16 >
17 > >
18 > > Whats your view on it?
19 >
20 > I think I broadly agree, although PAM is a mildly controversial
21 > example.
22 >
23 > I'd like to discuss specific examples of flags like USE=threads,
24 > some-if-not-all instances of USE=ipv6,
25 > And others which people raise if any others come up.
26 >
27 > Best,
28 > sam
29 >
30
31 I'll stir the USE=-pam pot.
32 A static busybox is a very good thing but that can only be achieved with
33 USE=-pam.
34
35 Sometimes it's the only way to pick up the pieces.
36
37 In general, where USE=-foo makes the code size smaller I would be
38 against dropping it. Think non Intel/AMD memory constrained systems.
39
40 Gentoo is popular outside the desktop, so keep those users in mind too.
41
42 --
43 Regards,
44
45 Roy Bamford
46 (Neddyseagoon) a member of
47 elections
48 gentoo-ops
49 forum-mods
50 arm64