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 |