From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5mo1-0008J3-5b for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:59:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7IFx58H025043; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:59:07 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7IFuXtF017954 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:56:34 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1E5mkr-0003bb-B4 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:56:33 +0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:56:06 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild design issue regarding some {I need the lib and api only}-DEPENDs Message-ID: <20050818155606.GB19947@nightcrawler> References: <200508181628.44059.trapni@gentoo.org> <200508181040.46106.vapier@gentoo.org> <4304A59D.8050901@gentoo.org> <1124379426.21223.155.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1124379426.21223.155.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 478fc824-3dab-4fa2-919f-33d91b8c9cc3 X-Archives-Hash: 958d13e6c69c0a0f28a401aecb6b46e7 --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:37:05AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Other distributions are also binary-only, so there's no real comparison > here. While I think having "client" and "server" type USE-flags is > really a bad idea, I don't see a problem with providing a library. >=20 > I 100% disagree with splitting the package into client and server, but > don't think it would be bad to have it like this: >=20 > net-libs/libmysqlclient > dev-db/mysql >=20 > You'll notice that there is no server package. The dev-db mysql package > should be the entire distribution. Splitting out a separate library for > client-only shouldn't be too bad, but I still disagree with it, for the > most part. Splitting it out is just as bad as breaking it into server/client=20 chunks from the added QA and maintenance standpoint, thing is, in this=20 case splitting out the lib *is* breaking it up into subpackages, so=20 it's no better :) Best solution in my opinon? Two use flags address this, client, and=20 server. Regardless of the setting of the two, you get the library;=20 =66rom there, you just set client and server as defaulting to on, and=20 packages use dep on whatever chunk of it they need (quite likely no=20 use dep in this case, since they probably only need the lib). Better tweak to it is not the usual use.defaults addition, but=20 specifying the default state of the USE flag in IUSE, as proposed by=20 spanky/others. Kind of curious about people's opinion on the IUSE default use flag=20 thing, initial syntax was (using the above example) IUSE=3D"+client server" with client defaulting to on unless the user's config disables it-=20 note, strictly enabling from IUSE, no auto-negation. I forgot to add this, but it's a 10 line change if people still view=20 it as worthwhile. ~harring --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDBK+WvdBxRoA3VU0RAhYlAKDE6Hf8BRx3QWkN9+Mpd1171cZJLgCgg4QN uQU4OxepxJd2CvxGB4ZMns4= =FXL/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list