| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 10:52 CST, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience |
| 6 |
>>> changing without me changing USE-flags. I'm not against changing the name of |
| 7 |
>>> the USE-flag, just against changing the default behavior and applying a |
| 8 |
>>> bunch of patches that Core might or might not support. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> If you compare this to the kernel would it not make more sense to create |
| 11 |
>>> something like bitcoin-knots (vanilla-sources vs gentoo-sources)? |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Wouldn't this mean having 2^n packages if there are multiple optional |
| 15 |
>> patches like this available? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> No. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The bitcoin client is a sercurity relevant packages where applying a |
| 20 |
> gigantic, third-party patchset isn't exactly something that should be |
| 21 |
> hidden behind a use flag. The comparison with the kernel sources makes a |
| 22 |
> lot of sense (vanilla-sources versus gentoo-sources). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I agree that a separate ebuild for the client with knots patches is a |
| 25 |
> much better approach. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The kernel doesn't give you a choice of multiple independent patch |
| 29 |
sets. We have just a few options that bundle many patches. You can't |
| 30 |
selectively turn them on and off. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm not asking whether patching bitcoin is good or bad. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'm pointing out that if you want to do the same thing with separate |
| 35 |
packages that we currently do with 3 different USE flags (that I can |
| 36 |
see offhand), you need a total of 8 packages. If you want to make |
| 37 |
knots an option and it isn't one already, then make that 16. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives