On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Luca Barbato wrote: > > On 04/05/12 11:37, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > > On 5/4/12 8:21 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > >> My 2 cents: The Chromium project really doesn't have any motivation to > > >> make it optional since their end product is Google Chrome and they > > >> target a given version of Ubuntu. I think a patch to make them > > >> optional might be accepted, but it probably isn't going to happen > > >> otherwise. > > > > > > Another point is that too many USE flags for such a big and complex > > > package as www-client/chromium would make testing much much harder, and > > > create many configurations upstream would not support. > > > > I'll check with upstream if that would be a huge problem for them, we > > have 6 useflags and we'd bump them to 8. Firefox has twice of them. > > > > If nobody else wants to I could have a look and see how hard is to make > > that nicer for our non-udev/non-dbus users on linux. > > Why do we really care about non-udev and non-dbus users? It's only > going to get worse and worse if people don't want to use these core, > base libaries of the Linux "stack". > > Yes, you can create a system without them, but in this day and age, why > would you want to? Are you saving memory? (nope), time? (nope), > complexity? (not really). > > Remember, you are passing the complexity of insisting that you do not > want these things to the people managing the packages and trying to > support the system in so many different combinations. Why someone would > want to run Chromium on a system without udev or dbus is just looney...
s/Chromium/Chrome/
