Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] client/server policy for ebuilds

[Ned Ludd]

On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 02:01 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:33, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > So we have two use flags - client and server. Here are the possabilities
> > >
> > > -client -server
> > > +client -server
> > > +client +server
> > > -client +server
> > >
> > > Do we read -client -server and +client +server to mean the same thing?
> > > If so the logic can read
> > >
> > > if use client || ! use server ; then
> > >     # build client
> > > fi
> > > if use server || ! use client ; then
> > >     # build server
> > > fi
> > >
> > > How does portage stop us from doing that now?
> >
> > built_with_use is then incorrect, since for -client -server you really
> > built both.
>
> use client && build client
> use server && build server
>
> The problem here is that breaks existing ebuilds, which could be viewed as
> equally bad.
>
> But technically built_with_use isn't incorrect as the ebuild wasn't built with
> it. To effectively use built_with_use you cannot assume that the flag does
> what it says on the tin - you have to inspect the ebuild code you're
> querying.

> Prior history shows deps of db vs gdbm where if both or neither then db was
> used, otherwise the flagged db was used.

Maybe along the same lines as what you are pointing out here it should
also be noted that built_with_use is semi faulty and can return wrong
results when no /var/db/pkg/$CATEGORY/$PVR/USE exists. This happens when
using the most recent ppc-uclibc stages which omitted a few entries
from the vdb. We end up having some ebuild or other assuming that
uclibc itself was built with +nls when it's really (-nls) use.masked
etc..



> Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o>
> Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list