Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] profiles/default/linux: Add USE="bzip2 lzma zstd" to defaults

[Peter Stuge]

Matt Turner wrote:
> > > If you can find a case where you wouldn't want to enable one of these
> > > USE flags, please let me know and I'll reconsider my position.
> >
> > My catalyst spec files all have  use: -* foo bar x y z
> > specifically because the defaults are never what I want for any given
> > system. I build desktops, servers, containers, VM appliance images and
> > embedded system, and I know what I want in each one. Especially the
> > latter frequently have only very few USE flags set and I want zero
> > extra dependencies.
>
> I think you're making a great argument that you'd be completely
> unaffected by any of the suggestions in this thread.

I don't consider needing "use: -*" at all a desirable situation. This
catalyst warning might support that:

Warning!!!
The use of -* in $stage/use will cause portage to ignore
package.use in the profile and portage_confdir. You've been warned!


I see it as a shortcoming of the standard profiles that I have to
essentially create my own in order to get what I want, as opposed
to being able to build upon something truly minimal.


> > > I'd claim most of these packages' bzip2/lzma/zstd USE flags should
> > > be removed in favor of statically enabling them
> >
> > That is the direct opposite of Gentoo's single most core value: choice
>
> Choice makes sense when there's a legitimate trade-off to be made.

I explained that and why I frequently do not want those USE flags set,
demonstrating that I want choice here.

You can of course dismiss any concern which disagrees with your opinion as
illegitimate. Please do not bother asking questions if that's your style.


> Choice isn't dogma.

Is there a difference between dogma and value? I understand choice to be
a core value in Gentoo. Maybe that's wrong (now)? Core values are more
important than pretty much anything else.

Choice isn't always possible. That's not this case. If choice is indeed
a core value then where choice is pretty easy (this case) in my mind
there needs to be an overwhelmingly strong argument to conciously and
intentionally disable choice.


> > Just don't do it. Kthx.
>
> This kind of thing is nothing but irritating. Please don't do this.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that "Just don't do it. Kthx." meant
exactly what you wrote:

This kind of thing (increase default USE-flags) is nothing but irritating.
Please don't do this.


Kind regards

//Peter