Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-30 Thread Thomas D.
Hi, William Hubbs wrote: > I believe, back in the day we started this practice, portage did not > support --newuse or --changed-use, so there was no way to only update > packages that had changed or new use flags. In that situation, I > understand why we installed all of these add-on files uncondi

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 07:49:32PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Not everybody uses logrotate, xinetd, cron.d, and so on. It still >> makes sense to just install the files, since they passively sit there >> doing nothing in those cases. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-29 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 07:49:32PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:11:34AM +0200, Matthias Maier wrote: > >> > >> > Thoughts? > >> > >> One point in favor of the current practice (installing add-on files > >> uncondi

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:11:34AM +0200, Matthias Maier wrote: >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> One point in favor of the current practice (installing add-on files >> unconditionally) is the fact that you can basically do it for free - you >> neither

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-29 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:11:34AM +0200, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > Thoughts? > > One point in favor of the current practice (installing add-on files > unconditionally) is the fact that you can basically do it for free - you > neither have to depend on additional packages, nor is the presence o

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-29 Thread Matthias Maier
> Thoughts? One point in favor of the current practice (installing add-on files unconditionally) is the fact that you can basically do it for free - you neither have to depend on additional packages, nor is the presence of the add-on files a penalty in download time or storage. Further, a lot of

[gentoo-dev] rfc: add-on files handling improvements

2015-03-29 Thread William Hubbs
All, I want to start a discussion about our add-on files practice and try to improve it. I agree it is reasonable to install bash completions unconditionally, because bash is part of the base requirement for Gentoo. However, I do not agree that we should continue installing add-on files for every