From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1714 invoked by uid 1002); 4 Nov 2003 01:00:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 10990 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2003 01:00:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 02:00:14 +0100 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20031104020014.5551bea3.genone@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20031104001715.GA10702@breccia.escarpment> References: <20031104002017.71d91fc0.genone@gentoo.org> <20031104001715.GA10702@breccia.escarpment> Organization: Gentoo Linux X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Face: H@&[wkk?l:Zx:8i_5bViK&{Vz{c{~r),^&:v/r#+X5dmfA6qCl)~'Ul{"&06Q1[05.%v&c>je5R{=xLnx^=~lN~rO0xuR~~NY)CX\"Nc4$9CBPwDl-.pYuVeGdir86L@\:j?7@%Ej2?Wi-Y0=1]T14ce0w79Bckk[*ti{;iA"{;I}&E~.msRBsBS)N!CS4Gd|_UR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__4_Nov_2003_02_00_14_+0100_8zSRJ6KoifZZ7ogW" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [IMPORTANT] server/client USE flags X-Archives-Salt: 26254194-c0b4-4251-88b2-61a81dc8f2e1 X-Archives-Hash: 879af44d2e72f8d415009ab5926e9f2b --Signature=_Tue__4_Nov_2003_02_00_14_+0100_8zSRJ6KoifZZ7ogW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/03/03 Donny Davies wrote: > Hi Marius > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:20:17AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > [...] > >So my idea (as well as others) is to add a new "server" USE flag that > >controls wether the server part of a package is build. This idea is > >outlined in more details on bug 12499, which also had the idea of a > >"client" USE flag, so that it's possible to only build the libs or > >only the server, however I think that such a flag will create more > >problems than benefits (see the bug for explanations). > > I do not support this. Debian's SAMBA has at least subpackages for > - common > - doc > - smbclient > - winbind > - swat > - smbfs > - python > - pam > > which is nuts. Users dont know what to install to get what they need. That's why I'm against package splits. > I recall looking at mod_php (or maybe it was php) subpackages for > another distribution, and there were _dozens_ of them. Insane in the > membrane. First I don't see how mod_php would be affected by this and second I think the 30something USE flags for mod_php can be confusing, too (alhough half of the problems just are the usual "why do I need X for php" problem). > I like the way Gentoo traditionally works; you emerge something and > you get it all, with some knobs to control build-time dependencies. > > Further, you are overloading the intended function of USE variables. > Instead of controlling optional build-time functionality, now you > are abusing them to control optional install-time bits. If we add the "server" flag to the default flags it will still install everything by default, if not we just have to make a big announcement (like Troy said). I don't see how I would abuse USE flags, often server support is just an option for a configure script. And many of the local USE flags don't follow this rule as well (btw, where can I read about this rule ?). > It is not natural to stop at "client" and "server" flags either. > What about "dev" for .a and .h things? This is really going down > the slipperly slope in my opinion. Maybe it's not natural to stop there (btw, I'm only for a "server" flag, not for a "client" flag), but it's reasonable. To make the "dev" stuff optional doesn't make much sense for Gentoo as dependencies usually need them, but usually there aren't dependencies on the server part of something. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. --Signature=_Tue__4_Nov_2003_02_00_14_+0100_8zSRJ6KoifZZ7ogW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/pvoiWzrL1pM7SNcRAt3VAKCKgILy0ZKRj2KWeCJSLpHJJLE/tACaA1Sw 62STB91I2MuAcakyqrATrTY= =i2Dh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__4_Nov_2003_02_00_14_+0100_8zSRJ6KoifZZ7ogW--