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 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-13661-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
	id 1Fozqs-0003fT-Be
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:33:54 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k5A9WxPW025921;
	Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:32:59 GMT
Received: from mail.marples.name (rsm.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.50])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5A9UrCb007361
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:30:53 GMT
Received: from uberpc.marples.name (uberpc.marples.name [10.73.1.30])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63CE190034
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:30:52 +0100 (BST)
From: Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org>
Organization: Gentoo
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] client/server policy for ebuilds
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:30:52 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3
References: <1149885352.22473.157.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <200606100201.25523.uberlord@gentoo.org> <20060610103221.7e99b954@c1358217.kevquinn.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060610103221.7e99b954@c1358217.kevquinn.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200606101030.52255.uberlord@gentoo.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 67f71d7c-5f27-444c-a38c-8359a725cbfb
X-Archives-Hash: 8d2b2cea8e8100eac19ac3b05f97cf2b

On Saturday 10 June 2006 09:32, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Suggestion was:
> net-misc/dhcp-client
> net-misc/dhcp-server
> net-misc/dhcp - RDEPEND on -client and -server

You would also need net-misc/dhcp-common then to stop client and server 
installing the same required libraries and headers. In this instance, keeping 
it in one ebuild outweights the advantage of a split ebuild in my eyes.

> This way, if something needs the server, they depend on dhcp-server.
> If something needs the client, it depends on dhcp-client.  If you need
> both, depend on net-misc/dhcp.  Over time, existing package depedencies
> can be reduced from dhcp to dhcp-client or dhcp-server as appropriate.

I doubt any package will ever depend on a dhcp server as such so that helps 
the one ebuild argument.

I think I'll keep it as it now is - minimal use flag stops server 
installation.

-- 
Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list