| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 4:54 AM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 22:01 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Enable these flags by default, since they effectively add no additional |
| 5 |
> > dependencies: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Why? This list should be getting smaller, not larger. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Polluting the base profiles makes running a minimal system that much |
| 10 |
> harder, and only "adds no dependencies" because people omit the |
| 11 |
> corresponding dependencies -- a situation that has to change |
| 12 |
> eventually. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> If they're actually important to a particular package, you should |
| 15 |
> change the defaults for that package. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not the file I'm changing, but I think the sentiment of the comment is |
| 18 |
correct: profiles/prefix/make.defaults says: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
# Some USE-flags that only die-hards don't want: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So, the thing about running a minimal system is... you already have |
| 23 |
these dependencies installed. This doesn't change that... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I could of course change the default of every bzip2/lzma/zstd in IUSE |
| 26 |
(and might as well handle zlib too so we can remove it from |
| 27 |
make.defaults!) but what practical advantage does that bring? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I doubt there's a sensible reason to build without any of these USE |
| 30 |
flags enabled. I think the claim that most people will want them |
| 31 |
enabled is not really a question. So we should enable them by default. |
| 32 |
I think that logic is pretty straightforward. If someone wants to |
| 33 |
disable the flags for some reason, they of course still have that |
| 34 |
option. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If you can find a case where you wouldn't want to enable one of these |
| 37 |
USE flags, please let me know and I'll reconsider my position. |
Archives