> I am not sure I understand the proposal either, tbh. Read below to understand > Although in general, the job of an ebuild tends to be to ensure that > mandatory requirements are satisfied somehow, so if 66 needs a launcher > and provides its own (?) then adding a dependency on an external one > seems an odd choice.
It *doesn't* want an external launcher. It *provides* a launcher for a daemon, replacing the daemon's own launcher. It is useless without the daemon. > So too, depending on the absence of a USE flag, e.g. > > RDEPEND=" > sys-apps/dbus-broker[-launcher] > " > > would unnecessarily constrain people from attempting to build it by > default without flag fiddling, whether they want systemd installed at > the same time or not. But simply having > > > RDEPEND=" > sys-apps/dbus-broker > " > > would leave it to the user to decide whether to add -launcher to > package.use, and admittedly also confuse them terribly and maybe make > them upset to see systemd being pulled in by default. I just omitted the dependency for good, and added `elog` messages to inform the user that they can install it themselves if they want it. I plan to later PR for dbus-broker depending on this instead, with a separate useflag. > I don't know that there's a good choice here short of having a s6-66 > option in `eselect profile` that adds a profile package.use which > defaults "launcher" to off. Another profile? Please, things needn't be complicated. KDE, GNOME, "desktop" etc... profiles need to be created for 66. OR 66 can only support a generic system by default. I'd like 66 to be available in the non-systemd profiles themselves. [Really, I don't want this to be written off as another novelty software; I want to drive it's adoption. A major step to ensure this is to reduce the required setup. I'd do a specific profile later, but now my main aim is to make it easier to switch from openrc] > So, avoiding dbus-broker altogether seems like the best option. I agree, I myself plan to do that, but I'd like to allow users know that there is the option in the software. > Alexis, you said before > > > My advice and suggestions are based on my knowledge and experiences in > > this area, with the intention of helping you create a package that > > people will want to use. But also, i don't want people to get the > > impression that 66 depends on systemd - which it doesn't - simply > > because you insist on using dbus-broker rather than dbus-daemon, even > > though the latter is perfectly adequate for most people's needs > > (including my own). > > > and I think I very much agree with you here. If people really want to > use dbus-broker, let them, but don't try to make portage install it for > them as it will simply cause no end of trouble. I have thus decided to remove the dependency altogether and have printed it to users via `elog`, that they can use it if they want.
