| 1 |
>> if you're going to change the topic mid-thread, then you should update |
| 2 |
>> the subject |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
Ah apologies for that; I just wanted to get the technical objection. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> you already know the state of the server/client debate ... moving it to |
| 7 |
>> global doesnt fix any of the short comings, so it should stay local (and |
| 8 |
>> removed where possible) |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
Well, I'm aware of the debate; I still haven't heard a convincing |
| 11 |
*technical* argument against (and i have searched this list.) Your position |
| 12 |
is fairly clear; can you enlighten usrs as to why you take that stance? I |
| 13 |
must be missing something.. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-525893.html if you feel this is |
| 16 |
cluttering the dev list with a usr prob. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Yeah -- "server" is way too generic. I've forgotten where else I use it, |
| 19 |
> but when I build "vnc" I use it to get a VNC server. Maybe make a local |
| 20 |
> "vnc-server" USE flag for that one. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
I don't see what is so dangerous about a server flag. After all I don't set |
| 23 |
doc globally, but it is a useful global flag, with clear intent, as would |
| 24 |
be server. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If usr sets server on a box in make.conf, against advice, they still have to |
| 27 |
actually emerge the pkgs they want, after all. So it's not like it's going |
| 28 |
to lead to a mass of bloat (unlike the current setup.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives