Petteri Räty schrieb: > Thomas Sachau wrote: >> In addition, i see a trend to enabled more more more USE flags (either over >> profiles or via IUSE >> +flag). Whats the reason for forcing a big load of default enabled USE flags >> on every user including >> more dependencies, more compile time, more wasted disk space and more >> possible vulnerabilities >> except some users, who complain about a missing feature and are not able to >> think and enable a USE >> flag for that feature? >> > > One possible reason is that our packages should follow upstream policy > and maybe upstreams usually like to keep things enabled rather than > disabled. > > Regards, > Petteri > >
With that argument you could request to enable all useflags by default. Its ok in my eyes, if you follow upstream the way tarballs are created (e.g. qt move to splitted qt packages or the other way round). Something else would make maintainence part much harder. But i disagree on the part for "follow upstream policy for default enabled USE flags". Gentoo is about choice and i would like to have the choice to disable most USE flags by default and with an easy way, e.g. by choising a profile with less default enabled USE flags. Forcing every user to disable many or almost all flags independent of his profile would make Gentoo less userfriendly in general without a good reason. If upstream does not want to support a disabled USE flag, they should not offer the choice to disable it in the first place. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
