| 1 |
On 02/03/2017 01:33 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> We might as well go back to before IUSE defaults then. Part of the |
| 4 |
> advantage of IUSE defaults is maintainers don't all have to fiddle with |
| 5 |
> the profiles, everything can be self-contained in the ebuild. This |
| 6 |
> drastically complicates maintenance, having two locations to track and |
| 7 |
> change rather than just one. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You still retain the benefit for IUSE defaults that actually belong in |
| 10 |
the base profile, just not for upstream defaults or the ones that you |
| 11 |
personally prefer. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I suspect that there is a small subset |
| 15 |
> of people interested in this, and perhaps those people could maintain a |
| 16 |
> "minimal" profile that unsets IUSE defaults. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Then every IUSE default gets recorded twice: once when the maintainer |
| 19 |
puts it in the ebuild, and once when I add it (negated) to the minimal |
| 20 |
profile. That's a bad design even if we pretend that I can solve the |
| 21 |
problem of tracking every IUSE change in the tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Also, I would just point out that the particular IUSE default that |
| 25 |
> you objected to in your original email does not really affect this |
| 26 |
> "minimalist" ideal that you seem to hold. The "hpn" USE flag on |
| 27 |
> openssh does not actually pull in any extra dependencies, it just |
| 28 |
> adds some optimizations to the network code to make it faster. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yeah, that. OpenSSH is probably the most security-critical package on |
| 32 |
our systems. OpenSSH is maintained upstream by a talented team of |
| 33 |
security-conscious people. The HPN patch is, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
a) a third-party patch... |
| 36 |
b) that has been rejected by the talented security-conscious team... |
| 37 |
c) and is useless for most people. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
So why are we deciding for our users that they must have it? |
Archives