| 1 |
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:56 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy |
| 6 |
> > > > of how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server |
| 7 |
> > > > and how to allow for building client-only. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > rather than moving to some sort of policy that satisfies no one |
| 10 |
> > > completely and we'll have to back out of later, why dont we wait until |
| 11 |
> > > portage can give us proper support for USE=client/server |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Got an ETA? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > The situation we have now is confusing, at best, to our users, and |
| 16 |
> > something really should be done to resolve it. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> sure, dont add support for the flags at all at this point, problem solved |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You apparently missed that there already are packages in the tree using |
| 21 |
these flags, as well as minimal. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This inconsistent usage is what I was trying to solve in the first |
| 24 |
place. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 28 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 29 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 30 |
Games - Developer |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives