From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 379441381F3 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:59:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4B91E093A; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24CCBE091D for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] profiles/targets/desktop: Do not enable ldap USE flag by default To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200909103540.200234-1-zlogene@gentoo.org> <5d4197c9a6eb6e694f7163f16a0b25d8b2d5dd35.camel@gentoo.org> From: Mikle Kolyada Message-ID: <58138a44-9bac-90a9-b12c-f513d4666ca1@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:59:31 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5d4197c9a6eb6e694f7163f16a0b25d8b2d5dd35.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Archives-Salt: 536b726b-ed3a-4acf-9851-d4850ece599b X-Archives-Hash: 65eb08d2e2a9f9c861aae07893591513 On 10.09.2020 08:35, Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 13:35 +0300, Mikle Kolyada wrote: >> Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/741380 > Could you provide a rationale for removing this? The bug only has a > single anecdotal report of a user who can run a desktop without it. I'm > not sure if that is reason enough to remove this. I guess we won't be > able to figure out easily how many of our desktop profile users are > actually using LDAP, but changing this may cause surprises and I'm not > sure if that's warranted. > > Hans Hi. It is dictated by common sense. I barely can imagine a case where you need ldap support in each and every package you install. This should rather be per-package enabled as something non-trivial.