took me some time to figure out what is pulling in webkit with the latest (very big) update on a slow machine webkit is a very strong dependency with long compile time, so I wonder if it makes sense to assume that most users will want this as default what is the actual loss of functionality if it is disabled? (useflag description is not really verbose)
I think it's used by --html and --url switchers... I am unsure about changing the default: we can either drop the "+" or tell people don't wanting webkit to disable webkit USE flag in their make.conf... but I don't have a strong opinion on this and either way is ok to me (anyway, I would show a message informing people that they need to enable webkit support to get that switchers, otherwise their scripts relying on that could break without notice :S) Any opinions from other gnome team members?
FTR, I wouldn't change anything. The +webkit is here on purpose, to avoid getting broken switches by default. Imho, it should not even be an option since the option to turn it off effectively creates a broken behavior. Since webkit is so annoying to build, we kept it optional, but this is really borderline.
Then, I think we can live with it: 1. By default get all switchers working 2. People don't wanting webkit can disable that via USE flags
(In reply to Gilles Dartiguelongue from comment #2) > FTR, I wouldn't change anything. The +webkit is here on purpose, to avoid > getting broken switches by default. Imho, it should not even be an option > since the option to turn it off effectively creates a broken behavior. Since > webkit is so annoying to build, we kept it optional, but this is really > borderline. If the useflag can cause breakage, then a "+" is not enough imo. It could be converted to "no-webkit" and then be added to package.use.mask.
No, default use flag have been introduced to stop this kind of "no-"flags that mean nothing useful to users. Either you suggest the feature should be on by default or it should be off, but you do not do so by naming things the opposite way. Hence the USE flag to control this is named webkit as it should and it defaults to on to avoid unexpected breakage for unsuspecting users. If the user wishes to avoid the dependency he/she can review emerge -pv output beforehand and check the local USE flag description if needed when he/she sees that is it on by default and wonders why. That's the bread'n'butter of Gentoo.
(In reply to Gilles Dartiguelongue from comment #5) > No, default use flag have been introduced to stop this kind of "no-"flags > that mean nothing useful to users. > > Either you suggest the feature should be on by default or it should be off, > but you do not do so by naming things the opposite way. > > Hence the USE flag to control this is named webkit as it should and it > defaults to on to avoid unexpected breakage for unsuspecting users. If the > user wishes to avoid the dependency he/she can review emerge -pv output > beforehand and check the local USE flag description if needed when he/she > sees that is it on by default and wonders why. > > That's the bread'n'butter of Gentoo. That does not make any sense. I suggested it should be OFF by default in the first place and only suggested this workaround because you did not agree. Broken useflags are not supposed to be non-masked.
