| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/15/2017 11:33 AM, tomjbe@g.o wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Quoting Kristian Fiskerstrand (2017-08-15 10:37:39) |
| 4 |
>>> On 08/15/2017 12:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On pon, 2017-08-14 at 21:58 +0200, Thomas Beierlein wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> * 'bacula-clientonly' becomes 'clientonly' |
| 8 |
>>>>> This is still negative logic in disguise. clientonly = noserver. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> Can the "minimum"-use flag be utilized here? |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> Sounds reasonable and is worth thinking about. At least we could define the |
| 13 |
>> meaning of "minimum" here in metadata.xml. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> But, looking through portage there seems to be no "minimum" use flag anymore. |
| 16 |
>> Seems it got dropped for some reasons. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> typo; "minimal"... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The meaning of the minimal flag varies considerably throughout the |
| 22 |
tree. It is common only because its meaning morphs from package to |
| 23 |
package. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
For example, could you say that a client-only install that still |
| 26 |
installs the X11 components is "minimal?" |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives