Re: [gentoo-dev] preference concerns over "gentoo-ization" of packages

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Sunday 28 September 2003 15:56, foser wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 15:41, Jason Wever wrote:
>
> I don't think USE flags should be used here. One way should be good
> enough for all. If you can't justify the changes well enough, they
> shouldn't go in. Supporting different ebuild build 'paths' with
> consequent different outcomes is not an option in my opinion.
>
> USE flags should be switches to already existing ebuild options, making
> them do 'this, that and the other thing' too is confusing and solves
> nothing. Clarity and simplicity should be our goals. The transparency of
> the process is what made Gentoo attractive, I see that initial goal slip
> away more and more.

I think that there are many customizations that improve the user experience, 
but that also more or less break the standard. Here I don't mean defaults 
that make the package work out-of-the-box, but for example themes. While I 
like the gentoo theme for gdm, I think there should be a way to say you don't 
what that kind of customization.

I think such a flag should be used in all cases where a customization is 
applied and the following statements apply:
- The package's behaviour, looks or configuration are different from the
  default behaviour and this behaviour was not just enabled by the patch (but
  latent in the package)
- The package does not conform anymore to its documentation. (In this case the
  changes MUST be documented) Except in places like init scripts that are not
  going to work for anything else then redhat.
- Aditional features (not bugfixes) are included by patches for use in some
  ebuilds (like dropshadows for kde). Even if those features are invisible, as
  they break compatibility and possibly cause instability.
- there are probably other cases

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@g.o
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net