[gentoo-dev] rfc: logrotate and xinetd use flags

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1253 bytes --]

All,

I know a decision about this type of use flag was made in the past, but
especially now with the --newuse option in portage, that decision
bothers me, so I would like to re-open the discussion.

I will use logrotate as my example, but what I'm saying also applies for
xinetd.

I feel that the current approach (using INSTALL_MASK) to control whether
these configuration files are installed or not is not well documented.
We tell people about it on the mailing lists, but I do not know of a
place where it is documented.

Also, it seems to be an all or nothing arrangement. If I do not want
logrotate support, I have to set the INSTALL_MASK then if I decide later
I want it, I have to unset the INSTALL_MASK and run "emerge -e world" to
get the files installed.

If we use a "logrotate" or "xinetd" use flag, it gives the users better
control of which packages have this support, and the --newuse option in
portage can be used to rebuild only the affected packages.

I guess the argument against the use flag was that packages were being
rebuilt just to install configuration files. I can see how that could be
a pita for big packages. Did anyone ever bring up using pkg_config to
un/install these files based on the use flags?

Comments?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]