* [gentoo-dev] rfc: logrotate and xinetd use flags
@ 2011-04-24 21:58 99% William Hubbs
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: William Hubbs @ 2011-04-24 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo development
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2011-04-24 21:58 99% [gentoo-dev] rfc: logrotate and xinetd use flags William Hubbs
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox