> On 2 Jan 2022, at 04:28, Blake Bartenbach <blakebartenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat Jan 1, 2022 at 4:21 PM CST, Piotr Karbowski wrote: >> The thing is, it's 2022, and it does not make any sense to *not* support >> IPv6, even if one does not connect to any network with IPv6, there's no >> harm to just have it there. >> > > This kind of logic goes down a slippery slope very quickly though. > "There's no harm to just have it there" kind of defeats the purpose of a > configurable operating system.
Yeah, agreed on that part. We can't really deny that Gentoo is the home of tweakers and ricers, even if we have other types of user too. The main aim should be to avoid complexity in ebuilds and invalid bug reports. Masking/forcing on flags as appropriate avoids most of these issues. But on IPv6, please see my other post. If we have to use an autoconf cache variable to force IPv6 off, that suggests it's probably not even a supported configuration upstream. > >> Beside 'ipv6', there are other USE flags that I have on mind. 'pam' >> being another of them. >> > > Well, I'm not sure about the pam one. The only USE flag that > consistently baffles me is 'X'. It really does not seem to have a well > defined definition, and it seems to do different things with different > packages. For the longest time, I had that flag globally disabled, but > used X and almost every package worked totally fine. > Somewhat related: we've started moving to USE=gui to help the situation a bit. See https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/use-flags.html#pg0802 <https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/use-flags.html#pg0802>. Best, sam
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
