| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:22:14 +1200 |
| 2 |
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 9 September 2012 15:53, Matthias Bethke <matthias@×××××××.de> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > I think Gentoo of all distributions should aim to provide software |
| 7 |
> > as "original" as possible. If there are any reasons that I have |
| 8 |
> > ignored so far why people would want the current behavior, how |
| 9 |
> > about I make this patch conditional on a new use flag? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'd suggest not a USE flag, at least, not at present, it would |
| 12 |
> needlessly require all ebuilds to have that useflag, which would be a |
| 13 |
> significant noise to users. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'd rather a documented( in the eclass ) ENV variable that could |
| 16 |
> toggle this behaviour that was /not/ a use-flag, so only people who |
| 17 |
> cared about that sort of behaviour could adjust it. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Then the question is only really as to what a "Sane default" is. Seems |
| 20 |
> the sane default is to install packlists, but have it being |
| 21 |
> disable-able by ENV change for the people who have the tuits to know |
| 22 |
> "I'll never need those, and if I do, I can handle the need to rebuild |
| 23 |
> everything with them". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I think the relevant env variable is called INSTALL_MASK then ;). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives