1 |
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:35 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of |
3 |
> how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and |
4 |
> how to allow for building client-only. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> The idea is quite simple. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Gentoo's standard operating procedure is to build packages as they were |
9 |
> intended and packaged from upstream. This means if the client and the |
10 |
> server for a particular package is in a single package, we should build |
11 |
> both by default. To facilitate building the client portions only, the |
12 |
> use of the local "minimal" USE flag is allowed. This can be shown in |
13 |
> the openldap and dhcp ebuilds. |
14 |
|
15 |
That is backwards however. |
16 |
The first ebuild to take advantage of building server/client |
17 |
was net-snmp and it uses minimal to build only the snmpd, snmptrapd. |
18 |
Sense then others have been bastardizing the USE flag. |
19 |
|
20 |
Being that net-snmp was historically first in doing this I'd rather |
21 |
not have to change all my setups on all my servers to accommodate your |
22 |
idea of inverting the logic of declaring it minimal to mean client-only. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Each package which uses this flag should |
25 |
> document what is built when the "minimal" USE flag is in use, via |
26 |
> use.local.desc as it will remove any ambiguity into what is being done. |
27 |
> Because of this, I would request that "minimal" not become a global USE |
28 |
> flag, since its meaning would actually be different between some |
29 |
> packages, |
30 |
|
31 |
Seems logical. |
32 |
|
33 |
But for what you are proposing I'd suggest not making USE of minimal at |
34 |
all for this. I'd rather see that flag reserved for mostly |
35 |
embedded alike use. |
36 |
|
37 |
-peace |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
42 |
Gentoo Linux |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |