Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] client/server policy for ebuilds

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1485 bytes --]

On Monday 12 June 2006 08:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:56 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > > This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a
> > > > > policy of how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client
> > > > > or server and how to allow for building client-only.
> > > >
> > > > rather than moving to some sort of policy that satisfies no one
> > > > completely and we'll have to back out of later, why dont we wait
> > > > until portage can give us proper support for USE=client/server
> > >
> > > Got an ETA?
> > >
> > > The situation we have now is confusing, at best, to our users, and
> > > something really should be done to resolve it.
> >
> > sure, dont add support for the flags at all at this point, problem solved
>
> You apparently missed that there already are packages in the tree using
> these flags, as well as minimal.

not really ... i'm fully aware of USE=server since ive used it myself

USE=client however doesnt exist, so you'd be incorrect there

> This inconsistent usage is what I was trying to solve in the first
> place.

with a stop gap measure ... i dont think this stop gap effort is worth the 
extra time, especially since it'll be simply backed out of down the road
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]