On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:05:59 +0200 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > > >> --- Comment #2 from Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> > >> 2011-06-21 09:35:59 UTC --- Afaik, the bash-completion eclass adds > >> the use flag only to make sure the user has bash-completion and > >> eselect packages installed. This is imho overkill and it indeed > >> meets the point that was made on the ml that installing one file > >> that doesn't in itself depends on anything doesn't warrant a USE > >> flag. Maybe the discussion should be brought to dev ML to make the > >> situation clearer for bash-completion too. > > > OK let's hear from the ML. Another good thing from bash-completion > > eclass is that it advertises bash-completion in pkg_postinst (though > > some packages miss this). If we're OK for dev-libs/glib not to use > > bash-completion use flag, what about the others, drop the use flag? > > With the flag, some additional files are installed _and_ additional > dependencies like app-shells/bash-completion (which will pull in > further dependencies) are required. Looks like a perfect case for a > USE flag to me. For example, users of embedded systems may not want to > install such additional packages. For the additional dependency, I'd put it in some common ebuild (like bash, or something without compiled binaries -- even better) and I'd put the flag there. There's no reason that a dozen of packages PDEPENDs on bash-completion. If one decides not to use bash-completion any longer, I don't see a reason to rebuild all those packages just to get rid of one PDEPEND (and a single file). -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
