On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/15/2017 02:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> For example, could you say that a client-only install that still >> installs the X11 components is "minimal?" > > Its somewhat context dependent, for an X application this doesn't > necessarily constitute additional dependencies for the system (think > desktop profile), whereby an application that is primarily used on > servers suddenly needing some graphics processing dragging it in is > likely wrong. > > That said, the use flag description isn't more detailed than "minimal - > Install a very minimal build (disables, for example, plugins, fonts, > most drivers, non-critical features)", so I'd say it is appropriate >
I'm not actually sure what you're advocating here. My suggestion is to avoid minimal entirely, because for a package like this it is just going to be confusing because there are so many different optional features and disabling any of them could be situational. It is probably also worth nothing that minimal is itself a negative flag. I really question whether we ought to have it at all. If you're suggesting to use minimal for bacula, then what specifically should it actually enable/disable in this particular case? For reference, the current IUSE is: IUSE="acl bacula-clientonly bacula-nodir bacula-nosd examples ipv6 libressl logwatch mysql postgres qt4 readline +sqlite ssl static tcpd vim-syntax X" There are a lot of features one might debate toggling with "minimal" in that list. -- Rich
