| 1 |
On 08/20/2015 09:32 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:03:26 +0200 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> As an alternative, we would use USE=client and USE=server along with |
| 6 |
>>> proper IUSE defaults to control client & server builds |
| 7 |
>>> appropriately. Both flags use positive logic, and REQUIRED_USE='|| |
| 8 |
>>> ( client server )' is rather clear. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> That increases the burden of managing configuration and further abuses |
| 11 |
>> REQUIRED_USE where it wasn't meant to be used in the first place. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> USE="dedicated" has worked fine for games users and no one has ever |
| 14 |
>> complained. In fact, it is a _very_ convenient USE flag, which means |
| 15 |
>> "no manual fiddling, this will be dedicated for sure". |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'm don't feel very strongly about it but as someone who is considering |
| 18 |
> working on more games in the future, I like what mgorny has suggested. |
| 19 |
> I don't think the micro-managing argument flies so well here because |
| 20 |
> these flags are much less common than flags like qt. client and server |
| 21 |
> would probably be enabled by default in most cases and I doubt there |
| 22 |
> are any games where you can't have both. If there were a conflict then |
| 23 |
> you would want to make a concious decision as it's more significant |
| 24 |
> than choosing a GUI toolkit. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So what is the gain? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
* introducing more REQUIRED_USE constraints (because you must not |
| 30 |
disable both client and server) |
| 31 |
* breaking existing configuration of users |
| 32 |
* migrating a lot of ebuilds for no practical gain |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Can we please have QA not dictate us how we model our USE flags? Games |
| 35 |
_are_ consistently handled. |
Archives