From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-45428-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1QE7Kh-0001sf-V7
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:59:12 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3B1B1C06F;
Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:59:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-gw0-f53.google.com (mail-gw0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913C5E0384
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so711332gwj.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id
:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition
:user-agent;
bh=oyOC9cUTdreZf18Igrgs4o8QFR8RVwwT7/Vqbj11dpk=;
b=Ayhs3d4YYS0ogsxUaw1VuB70p5Zv9NyefeCRd399SLy7feNozFr8Nw+v8nvGKyzSrJ
0a6MxvJUonEL21wJDlYZGzs3LSjbWxkiyZHj7f3r4jqDkvf7LhK1G8yk4YC2qpiMqBUU
2uBKuSOsKXUQhhVR6TlbiSsPLCfEbB/YyphIQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent;
b=guSmSR5YaJigO8TsaufUjzyjfvdPBE/gJbHXoQWmDZ6DS3VudtDJJm+1KGViYnxEIj
DYHALav96RUgB3jU9C8xXhtJLSBM0qidDxrlsgIy9uIo2IceBEhhq3Ks+1IIC0s4MFX4
TZ7b/JWmPOovTilEyttfuhUoPRWb4nn5LJK1Q=
Received: by 10.236.119.228 with SMTP id n64mr3275473yhh.302.1303682309038;
Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-183-49-63.tx.res.rr.com [76.183.49.63])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 45sm2019764yhl.2.2011.04.24.14.58.27
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>
Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:58:23 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:58:23 -0500
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] rfc: logrotate and xinetd use flags
Message-ID: <20110424215823.GA24437@linux1>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="liOOAslEiF7prFVr"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 75953d5c3652ad44c559a6245f69101f
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk20nP8ACgkQblQW9DDEZTgbHQCgjHYpTRTTAMGzshB5x0bN4P+T
WM0AmwVQHnZTrklg/Tx7aoZUBEASRkY6
=jMhK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr--