On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 10:52 CST, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience >> changing without me changing USE-flags. I'm not against changing the name of >> the USE-flag, just against changing the default behavior and applying a >> bunch of patches that Core might or might not support. >> >> If you compare this to the kernel would it not make more sense to create >> something like bitcoin-knots (vanilla-sources vs gentoo-sources)? >> > > Wouldn't this mean having 2^n packages if there are multiple optional > patches like this available? No. The bitcoin client is a sercurity relevant packages where applying a gigantic, third-party patchset isn't exactly something that should be hidden behind a use flag. The comparison with the kernel sources makes a lot of sense (vanilla-sources versus gentoo-sources). I agree that a separate ebuild for the client with knots patches is a much better approach.
