| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:10 +0000, Steve Long wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I don't know how it would work technically, how difficult it would be, or |
| 5 |
>> indeed if anyone is prepared to do the work, besides maybe some of the |
| 6 |
>> users. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Once we have USE-based dependencies across the board, then yes. Until |
| 12 |
> that time, we should really be building both client and server for *all* |
| 13 |
> packages. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I can understand that rationale for the client part, but which packages |
| 16 |
would depend on the server part of e.g. MySQL if they could? |
| 17 |
And building the server part to get the small client lib is a larger |
| 18 |
PITA than building the client lib to get the server, no? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In other words: this is a sound argument against the client use flag, |
| 21 |
but I don't think it's quite as convincing regarding the server flag, |
| 22 |
which is more important IMHO. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Btw, I agree that the best thing to do would be to prompt upstream to |
| 25 |
split those packages (where it makes sense), which is the preferred way |
| 26 |
to handle this here (at least I read this somewhere, does it still |
| 27 |
apply?), but does anybody do that actually? To stay with the MySQL |
| 28 |
example, did anyone try to suggest to MySQL AB that seperate releases |
| 29 |
for the client part* would be nice? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Thomas |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
* They already do this for their binaries, see |
| 35 |
<http://mysql.org/downloads/mysql/5.0.html#Linux_x86_generic_RPM_(dynamically_linked)>. |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives