Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] client/server policy for ebuilds
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 05:29:46
Message-Id: 200606150129.04201.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] client/server policy for ebuilds by Chris Gianelloni
1 On Monday 12 June 2006 08:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
2 > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:56 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
3 > > On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
4 > > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
5 > > > > On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
6 > > > > > This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a
7 > > > > > policy of how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client
8 > > > > > or server and how to allow for building client-only.
9 > > > >
10 > > > > rather than moving to some sort of policy that satisfies no one
11 > > > > completely and we'll have to back out of later, why dont we wait
12 > > > > until portage can give us proper support for USE=client/server
13 > > >
14 > > > Got an ETA?
15 > > >
16 > > > The situation we have now is confusing, at best, to our users, and
17 > > > something really should be done to resolve it.
18 > >
19 > > sure, dont add support for the flags at all at this point, problem solved
20 >
21 > You apparently missed that there already are packages in the tree using
22 > these flags, as well as minimal.
23
24 not really ... i'm fully aware of USE=server since ive used it myself
25
26 USE=client however doesnt exist, so you'd be incorrect there
27
28 > This inconsistent usage is what I was trying to solve in the first
29 > place.
30
31 with a stop gap measure ... i dont think this stop gap effort is worth the
32 extra time, especially since it'll be simply backed out of down the road
33 -mike