| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of |
| 4 |
> > how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and |
| 5 |
> > how to allow for building client-only. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> rather than moving to some sort of policy that satisfies no one completely and |
| 8 |
> we'll have to back out of later, why dont we wait until portage can give us |
| 9 |
> proper support for USE=client/server |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Got an ETA? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The situation we have now is confusing, at best, to our users, and |
| 14 |
something really should be done to resolve it. Waiting another 6 months |
| 15 |
to a year, only to be able to use it with the particular portage |
| 16 |
versions that support the proper EAPI for use-based dependencies is not |
| 17 |
an optimal answer for our users, which is why I came up with the |
| 18 |
proposal. Honestly, I don't care *what* is decided, so much as I want |
| 19 |
to spark conversation and see *some* resolution come of it that is *at |
| 20 |
least* consistent until use-based dependencies are a reality. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 24 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 25 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 26 |
Games - Developer |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives