| 1 |
On Thu, 09 May 2013 05:56:42 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <basile@××××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 05/08/2013 10:01 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:48:36 -0400 |
| 6 |
> > "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Wouldn't the "systemd" USE flag be the appropriate one to key on? |
| 9 |
> >> The description in /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc says... |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> systemd - Enable use of systemd-specific libraries and features like |
| 12 |
> >> socket activation or session tracking |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> Surely, units files qualify as "systemd-specific features". |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198901 |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> People keep saying disk space is not an issue but it is on embedded |
| 19 |
> systems. Even 4k or one i-node. So the choice to not install unit |
| 20 |
> files is important. I'm sympathetic to the idea of reducing use flags |
| 21 |
> and I would really not like to see USE="openrc" or "systemd" everywhere. |
| 22 |
> Without having tested, it does seem that INSTALL_MASK is sufficient. |
| 23 |
> I recommend going that route and documenting it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We should probably consider extending the INSTALL_MASK a bit. A good |
| 26 |
idea would be to allow repositories to pre-define names |
| 27 |
for INSTALL_MASK (alike USE flags) and allow portage to control them |
| 28 |
over those names. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
A similar variant is implemented in app-portage/install-mask which maps |
| 31 |
names obtained from ${FILESDIR} to paths. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives