From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27125 invoked by uid 1002); 4 Nov 2003 18:55:41 -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 14879 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2003 18:55:41 -0000 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:55:44 -0500 From: Donny Davies To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20031104185544.GA14900@breccia.escarpment> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20031104002017.71d91fc0.genone@gentoo.org> <20031104181034.GB9610@jogger-egg.com> <3FA7EEBE.7040507@gentoo.org> <20031104183748.GA1055@cerberus.oppresses.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031104183748.GA1055@cerberus.oppresses.us> X-GPG-Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x94FCF14B X-GPG-Fingerprint: 57A4 B201 EC2D 61A9 6025 82EB A281 BD45 94FC F14B User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.112.123.181] using ID at Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:55:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [IMPORTANT] server/client USE flags X-Archives-Salt: 0588dcb8-9b08-4ac7-815a-8ad5d0c0872b X-Archives-Hash: 1a1d8875257d09caf13a80af01f8bf92 --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Sorry about the messed up Reply-To on this one. Slip of the D key. On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:23:58PM -0500, John Davis wrote: > To avoid over-complication, why don't we just separate the client and > server ebuilds completely? (eg, samba-server, samba-client, etc)? I > think woodchip pounced all over this one, but why avoid the most simple > and elegant solution? That's not going to happen. Not as long as I am maintaining SAMBA :-) Separate ebuilds is not clean. Overloading USE flags is also way off base; they are not meant to designate subpackages. Unless subpackages are supported by Portage in some official fashion, I'm not playing ball. That's really what the people are asking for. So, design subpackages support. Then the ebuilds can be changed. Donny --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/p/YwooG9RZT88UsRAk89AJ9lykHn0rHKrVq2KoSBMFWa5ezlewCgmrw8 1gMM6NLBuDwLr3w1oUBplP8= =wknm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--