1 |
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:10 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: |
2 |
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only |
3 |
> want one or the other - and rarely both. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. |
6 |
> Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show |
7 |
> what I want, or not want to build. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> A quick scan through the use flags show no real consistency, so here's what I |
10 |
> propose |
11 |
> |
12 |
> USE client server |
13 |
> client - just build the client - duh |
14 |
> server - just build the server - duh |
15 |
> client and server OR neither then build both. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Other packages to possably beneift |
18 |
> udhcp |
19 |
> mldonkey |
20 |
> samhain |
21 |
> bacula |
22 |
> boxbackup |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Interestingly, many packages have a server USE flag but not a client one - |
25 |
> maybe make both a global USE flag? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts? |
28 |
|
29 |
(Yeah, I know, repeating our IRC conversation.) |
30 |
|
31 |
Bug #12499 |
32 |
|
33 |
The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary |
34 |
distributions. We don't want to have to have separate |
35 |
client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that |
36 |
Gentoo has. The default should *always* be to install the package as it |
37 |
was intended from upstream, completely intact. Now, it has started to |
38 |
become a practice to have a "minimal" USE flag on certain packages that |
39 |
reduces the functionality to the bare client portion. I see no real |
40 |
problem with this, so long as the default is to always build/install the |
41 |
full package. |
42 |
|
43 |
That's my $0.02 on the matter. |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Chris Gianelloni |
47 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
48 |
x86 Architecture Team |
49 |
Games - Developer |
50 |
Gentoo Linux |