| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 10:52 CST, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience |
| 4 |
>> changing without me changing USE-flags. I'm not against changing the name of |
| 5 |
>> the USE-flag, just against changing the default behavior and applying a |
| 6 |
>> bunch of patches that Core might or might not support. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> If you compare this to the kernel would it not make more sense to create |
| 9 |
>> something like bitcoin-knots (vanilla-sources vs gentoo-sources)? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Wouldn't this mean having 2^n packages if there are multiple optional |
| 13 |
> patches like this available? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The bitcoin client is a sercurity relevant packages where applying a |
| 18 |
gigantic, third-party patchset isn't exactly something that should be |
| 19 |
hidden behind a use flag. The comparison with the kernel sources makes a |
| 20 |
lot of sense (vanilla-sources versus gentoo-sources). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I agree that a separate ebuild for the client with knots patches is a |
| 23 |
much better approach. |
Archives