Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 928932 - profiles/releases/23.0/make.defaults: drop or relocate USE=lzma
Summary: profiles/releases/23.0/make.defaults: drop or relocate USE=lzma
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Profiles (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Andreas K. Hüttel
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2024-04-08 11:53 UTC by Michael Orlitzky
Modified: 2024-04-12 05:57 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Orlitzky gentoo-dev 2024-04-08 11:53:57 UTC
As discussed on gentoo-dev:

This default doesn't actually solve the stated problem, and setting it in a high-level profile causes new ones for users who want it disabled. The obvious solution to revert to the status quo is to set USE="-lzma", but that has the dangerous side-effect of overriding IUSE defaults in packages where they are important. For example, sys-apps/kmod uses +lzma to ensure that your kernel will boot if you choose lzma compression for modules; helpful, because there's no other way for the package manager to track that dependency.

There are other more appropriate places for USE=lzma:

  * In a profile that the user has to choose, like the desktop profile.
  * In the packages themselves, as IUSE defaults.
  * Nowhere :) All Gentoo users know how to set USE=lzma if they want
    lzma support. You learn this before you even boot into your first
    Gentoo install.
Comment 1 Chris Pritchard 2024-04-08 12:02:36 UTC
If you're looking for consensus I've been following the threads on gentoo-dev and would agree with this change to the profile. There are other, more sensible, places to put this as a default directly in the packages where it's important.
Comment 2 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev 2024-04-09 21:48:38 UTC
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=bbe2b57efbc894c3a06c283927ae245d0d1b6454

commit bbe2b57efbc894c3a06c283927ae245d0d1b6454
Author:     Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2024-04-09 21:44:36 +0000
Commit:     Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2024-04-09 21:48:17 +0000

    profiles, 23.0: Undo USE="lzma zstd", except for toolchain where zstd makes sense
    
    As discussed on gentoo-dev and in toolchain / base-system teams.
    
    Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/928932
    Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/928933
    Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>

 profiles/releases/23.0/make.defaults |  9 +++------
 profiles/releases/23.0/package.use   | 10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Comment 3 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2024-04-10 05:09:16 UTC
I disagree with making such a change lightly, based on "consensus" that apparently seems to be built by a single Gentoo developer + 3 people who contribute posts to mailing lists.

The timeline is particularly bad because:

1. We've enabled it by default.

2. We told all people to switch profiles and rebuild everything.

3. We pull the carpet from under their feet.

I can pretty much imagine a scenario where users would suddenly be unable to access their data, because a tool built with USE=lzma started using LZMA compression in them.

This is basically opinionated minority sabotaging user systems.
Comment 4 Andreas K. Hüttel archtester gentoo-dev 2024-04-10 06:40:11 UTC
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #3)
> I disagree with making such a change lightly, based on "consensus" that
> apparently seems to be built by a single Gentoo developer + 3 people who
> contribute posts to mailing lists.
> 
> The timeline is particularly bad because:
> 
> 1. We've enabled it by default.
> 
> 2. We told all people to switch profiles and rebuild everything.
> 
> 3. We pull the carpet from under their feet.
> 
> I can pretty much imagine a scenario where users would suddenly be unable to
> access their data, because a tool built with USE=lzma started using LZMA
> compression in them.
> 
> This is basically opinionated minority sabotaging user systems.

If you don't reply to toolchain or base-system pings, your fault.
Comment 5 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2024-04-10 07:26:06 UTC
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #4)
> If you don't reply to toolchain or base-system pings, your fault.

So you're saying that the members of these two teams only get a voice in Gentoo these days?  Good to know.
Comment 6 Sam James archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2024-04-10 08:32:53 UTC
It was discussed on IRC in a bunch of places as well where other developers agreed with the change and importantly, nobody spoke up in favour of the status quo.

dilfridge is saying he also then pinged core projects just in case to give people a chance to scream before doing it.
Comment 7 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2024-04-10 09:04:06 UTC
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> It was discussed on IRC in a bunch of places as well where other developers
> agreed with the change and importantly, nobody spoke up in favour of the
> status quo.

Well, I guess I didn't explicitly say I do support "status quo", just indicated that changing it right now could break user systems and cause interoperability issues.  My bad.
Comment 8 Michael Orlitzky gentoo-dev 2024-04-10 12:11:42 UTC
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #3)
> 
> I can pretty much imagine a scenario where users would suddenly be unable to
> access their data, because a tool built with USE=lzma started using LZMA
> compression in them.

A valid concern, but:

1. Unlike the other way around, it's easy to change by putting USE=lzma in make.conf or in a child profile.
2. Is still hypothetical unless there's an example.
3. If you believe that there are downsides to having the defaults in high-level profiles, and ignoring all else, is motivation to remove those defaults as soon as possible, so that their removal affects as few people as possible.

I'm not trying to break user systems or get in the way of people who want the batteries included. There are however a lot of people who use Gentoo _because_ it lets you turn build-time features off. Having the defaults live somewhere else is a compromise that everyone can be happy with.

(Thanks for the fast response on this.)