On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Matthias Maier <tam...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, at 10:52 CST, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> As a Bitcoin user I personally don't feel too happy with my experience >>> changing without me changing USE-flags. I'm not against changing the name of >>> the USE-flag, just against changing the default behavior and applying a >>> bunch of patches that Core might or might not support. >>> >>> If you compare this to the kernel would it not make more sense to create >>> something like bitcoin-knots (vanilla-sources vs gentoo-sources)? >>> >> >> Wouldn't this mean having 2^n packages if there are multiple optional >> patches like this available? > > No. > > The bitcoin client is a sercurity relevant packages where applying a > gigantic, third-party patchset isn't exactly something that should be > hidden behind a use flag. The comparison with the kernel sources makes a > lot of sense (vanilla-sources versus gentoo-sources). > > I agree that a separate ebuild for the client with knots patches is a > much better approach. >
The kernel doesn't give you a choice of multiple independent patch sets. We have just a few options that bundle many patches. You can't selectively turn them on and off. I'm not asking whether patching bitcoin is good or bad. I'm pointing out that if you want to do the same thing with separate packages that we currently do with 3 different USE flags (that I can see offhand), you need a total of 8 packages. If you want to make knots an option and it isn't one already, then make that 16. -- Rich
