On N, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > You are right. In case users really intend to use that, they may be
> > better using app-portage/install-mask, and:
> >
> > $ install-mask -a systemd
> >
> > which will add just the right path.
> 
> Still misses the point. USE flags were invented to deal with these
> options. On a default install, which uses OpenRC, users shouldn't have
> to then emerge an additional program to add more configuration in
> order to have a clean system.

USE flags are not meant for controlling every little thing, such as
conditional installing a 400 byte file that does no harm when not used,
other than taking 1 block of filesystem space (4kB or so), which can be
workarounded by INSTALL_MASK if you are building an embedded system. I
seriously doubt they were invented for such a purpose, but rather to
control ./configure arguments and external dependencies.

No, wanting to get rid of those on a desktop/server via a USE flag (as
opposed to an INSTALL_MASK) is not a consideration, as that's users
completely unneeded desire for no technical reason. If taking 500kB
total for systemd service files is an issue, then the issue really is
that you are using a 1GB /usr partition or something.

This all is similar to how we in GNOME unconditionally install user and
developer documentation, as long as it does not impose any extra build
time or downloads.
(no, this is not really negotiable for change, and we are talking about
more than 400 byte files here; we'd be happy however if portage binary
packages supported splitting of the source packages files to separate
packages, so that binary distribution derivatives could work in a
similar model as purely binary distributions)

USE flags typically control the functionality of compiled binaries,
usually involving external dependencies to achieve such extra
functionality.

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=2#doc_chap1_sect2


Best Regards,
Mart Raudsepp


Reply via email to