| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 14:16:33 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 02:55:53PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On 04/07/2018 02:44 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> > |
| 7 |
>>> > I'm with floppym on this one. Is there a specific reason we enable |
| 8 |
>>> > them globally? |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> It's a relic from before we had IUSE defaults. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> > Since there has been so little discussion on this thread, I will |
| 14 |
>>> > start looking at what I need to do to remove these use flags from |
| 15 |
>>> > the profiles. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> There's probably a few packages that will need IUSE defaults to avoid |
| 18 |
>>> breakage, and everyone else should get fair warning before the flags |
| 19 |
>>> are turned off by default. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>>There is the case of packages that optionally use a db back end, |
| 22 |
>>and I would argue that those may not need iuse defaults. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>>It could also be argued that having one backend enabled globally is |
| 25 |
>>good for consistency, but that would end up leading down a bikeshed |
| 26 |
>>path that I'm not sure we should go down. I'm just not sure it makes |
| 27 |
>>sense to enable more than one of these backends globally. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>>Thoughts? |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>>William |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Considering the questionable license situation with latest sys-libs/db |
| 35 |
> releases (AGPL), I'd say we should prefer gdbm over berkdb in case we |
| 36 |
> want to keep one db backend default enabled. |
| 37 |
> IIRC Fedora is even trying to entirely getting rid of berkdb. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Here's a link with more information: |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361971 |
Archives