Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Wever <weeve@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] preference concerns over "gentoo-ization" of packages
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:58:33
1 Hi All,
3 I just wanted to bring up a point and suggest a possible solution for it.
5 I've noticed that with some of our ebuilds, we have customized the
6 software it installs beyond fixing broken functionality[1]. Some examples
7 of this are; default themes for window managers, changes in config files
8 (changing default parameters and/or chunking up the configs into multiple
9 files), patches for non-standard functionality, etc[2].
11 Personally (and I'm guessing I'm not the only one), I'm not big on this
12 behavior being the default when said packages install. One of the things
13 I liked about my pre-Gentoo days when I built my packages from hand is
14 that nothing was assumed for me, be it dependencies or how a program was
15 run. Gentoo for a large part does this. However there are some ebuilds
16 that do no do this. This can be frustrating not only from a
17 configuration/maintenance point of view, but when trying to troubleshoot
18 software issues (i.e. bug fixes). This is a reason we sometimes
19 have problems dealing with vendors/authors of programs.
21 I also understand that a lot of people may desire this
22 additional/customized functionality as well. Therefore I'd like to
23 propose the creation of a new keyword that would then allow users to get
24 this Gentoo customization of their packages should they so choose[3].
25 This makes it still accessible to those who want it, but does not make it
26 the default behavior.
28 I think this also falls under what Gentoo wants to present to people
30 I look forward to hearing your responses to this.
32 [1] - examples that came to mind at this time are blackbox and derivatives
33 (particularly in relation to commonbox, which seems unneeded unless you
34 run more than one of these consistantly), GNU/screen (which adjusts the
35 default config to remove "dangerous" key bindings)and apache (which
36 segregates the config into multiple different files).
38 [2] - For clarification, I'm not opposed to the pathing of packages when
39 they are setup, mostly anything that is adjusted after configure has been
40 run.
42 [3] - I'm not saying I don't appreciate the work that people have put into
43 the customization of certain packages, however I don't want to have to
44 spend time reverting those changes back to something resembling the
45 default configuration if I don't desire the changes.
48 Thanks,
49 --
50 Jason Wever
51 Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead