Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Client-serve flags (again ;) (was Re: New eclass: gkrellm-plugin)
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:57:35
Message-Id: 20070309085315.5758d5ae@sed-192.sedsystems.ca
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Client-serve flags (again ;) (was Re: New eclass: gkrellm-plugin) by Chris Gianelloni
1 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
2 > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:10 +0000, Steve Long wrote:
3 > > I don't know how it would work technically, how difficult it would
4 > > be, or indeed if anyone is prepared to do the work, besides maybe
5 > > some of the users.
6 >
7 > No.
8 >
9 > Once we have USE-based dependencies across the board, then yes. Until
10 > that time, we should really be building both client and server for
11 > *all* packages. The *only* reason one should not be doing this is if
12 > they're following the definition of minimal, or it is not possible to
13 > build both the client and the server at the same time.
14
15 Where can I learn more about the progress of this USE-based
16 dependencies feature? I couldn't find an appropriate GLEP -- only
17 bug 2272 [1] seemed relevant, and it doesn't mention what (if anything)
18 is actually being done to get this into portage... Or is it just
19 waiting on the definition of EAPI=0 to be complete so it can be added
20 to EAPI=1?
21
22 [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2272
23
24 --
25 Jim Ramsay
26 Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies