From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-84382-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
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 308471382C5
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 20:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2792E08FC;
Sat, 7 Apr 2018 20:41:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.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 8A726E08E2
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 20:41:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: mattst88)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 325DF335C0A
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 20:41:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y128so5449307iod.4
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GPoBXM8OAZqSs8re/G2o+iqQi74LBdVUmlfCabWsBjY4BP90Su
SM7CYUEAab1rN6DkFvIvG8f//nG3YClK/cwXw18=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/rYYt6kZjNmV8OXlFz8FtrnyHthYHgeIK/IlQuHSUAyLmlj59S2Nm2eXLBfGZsKR7FQDQVzuN9bTE79B3VCrM=
X-Received: by 10.107.57.84 with SMTP id g81mr28847675ioa.6.1523133715377;
Sat, 07 Apr 2018 13:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
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
Received: by 10.2.113.38 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180407215743.5a25054b@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec>
References: <CAJ0EP43TEYAij7ChB35y0+bs9wyuA-aR8LK=vAWHaL0+Ew-jow@mail.gmail.com>
<20180407184437.GA1512@linux1.home> <51e22c95-dd73-769d-4ce3-79b9f5c673bd@gentoo.org>
<20180407191633.GA1628@linux1.home> <20180407215743.5a25054b@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec>
From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:41:34 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAEdQ38ECPRBr2gcpn9j0Yp_PmuVHMWhr_Aou4FxQHcm08SEv9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEdQ38ECPRBr2gcpn9j0Yp_PmuVHMWhr_Aou4FxQHcm08SEv9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] berkdb and gdbm in global USE defaults
To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: e9a32759-0c17-400d-8bfa-726f16bbf6b0
X-Archives-Hash: d2154517179f0672b60da01a582303d3
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 14:16:33 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 02:55:53PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2018 02:44 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm with floppym on this one. Is there a specific reason we enable
>>> > them globally?
>>>
>>> It's a relic from before we had IUSE defaults.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Since there has been so little discussion on this thread, I will
>>> > start looking at what I need to do to remove these use flags from
>>> > the profiles.
>>>
>>> There's probably a few packages that will need IUSE defaults to avoid
>>> breakage, and everyone else should get fair warning before the flags
>>> are turned off by default.
>>
>>There is the case of packages that optionally use a db back end,
>>and I would argue that those may not need iuse defaults.
>>
>>It could also be argued that having one backend enabled globally is
>>good for consistency, but that would end up leading down a bikeshed
>>path that I'm not sure we should go down. I'm just not sure it makes
>>sense to enable more than one of these backends globally.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>William
>>
>
> Considering the questionable license situation with latest sys-libs/db
> releases (AGPL), I'd say we should prefer gdbm over berkdb in case we
> want to keep one db backend default enabled.
> IIRC Fedora is even trying to entirely getting rid of berkdb.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Here's a link with more information:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361971