| 1 |
Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi. How do we handle packages that provide client, server, and possibly |
| 3 |
> extra tools/libraries? Do we split packages like binary distros do or do |
| 4 |
> we use USE flags? What USE flags? Currently some packages are split |
| 5 |
> other use client, server or minimal USE flag(s). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Back in 2006 similar problem was discussed many times with no final |
| 8 |
> resolution - it was hard to ban split packages since portage had no |
| 9 |
> support for USE deps. Also some packages started to utilize 'minimal' |
| 10 |
> USE flag to force users read USE flag description and thus reduce its |
| 11 |
> usage and lower number of bugs due to not-installed parts of package. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> With EAPI=2 both use deps and USE defaults (if necessary) are here so |
| 14 |
> it's possible to introduce some guidelines: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 1. do not split packages; use USE flags and USE deps. |
| 17 |
> 2. stop using minimal USE flag to build client or sever only. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> So are there any good reasons to split packages? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/12499 but many similar disscussions were on this |
| 24 |
> list... |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I think a good guideline is: |
| 28 |
1. Use a single pkg when upstream releases server and client in one bundle |
| 29 |
2. Use separate packages when upstream releases client and server separately |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I think the minimal use flag should not be used for this purpose any more. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Petteri |
Archives