[gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Roy Marples]

Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only 
want one or the other - and rarely both.

A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. 
Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show 
what I want, or not want to build.

A quick scan through the use flags show no real consistency, so here's what I 
propose

USE client server
client - just build the client - duh
server - just build the server - duh
client and server OR neither then build both.

Other packages to possably beneift
udhcp
mldonkey
samhain
bacula
boxbackup

Interestingly, many packages have a server USE flag but not a client one - 
maybe make both a global USE flag?

Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts?

Thanks

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[George Shapovalov]

п'ятниця, 9. червень 2006 15:10, Roy Marples Ви написали:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually
> only want one or the other - and rarely both.
[skip]
> USE client server
> client - just build the client - duh
> server - just build the server - duh
> client and server OR neither then build both.
The problem with this approach is when you have dependencies on a particular 
client or server. Then you cannot sipy depend on a package (with present 
portage) and instead you need to do a hackery detection and bail out in 
pkg_setup. I think this is the reason why, for example, bind comes as two 
packages: bind (for everything) and bind-tools.

Of course this multiplies the number of packages to support, if such situation 
is common. However the solution you describe can be considered "clean" only 
after #2272 is finally resolved..
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2272

George

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Alec Warner]

Roy Marples wrote:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only 
> want one or the other - and rarely both.
> 
> A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. 
> Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show 
> what I want, or not want to build.
> 
> A quick scan through the use flags show no real consistency, so here's what I 
> propose
> 
> USE client server
> client - just build the client - duh
> server - just build the server - duh
> client and server OR neither then build both.
> 
> Other packages to possably beneift
> udhcp
> mldonkey
> samhain
> bacula
> boxbackup
> 
> Interestingly, many packages have a server USE flag but not a client one - 
> maybe make both a global USE flag?
> 
> Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts?
> 

My thought is wait until portage-2.2_alpha where we will have default 
USE flags.  Then I can see putting client/server flags up and having 
both be default, letting the user turn off clients and servers in 
/etc/portage/package.use.

> Thanks
> 

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Patrick McLean]

Roy Marples wrote:
> USE client server
> client - just build the client - duh
> server - just build the server - duh
> client and server OR neither then build both.
> 
> Other packages to possably beneift
> udhcp
> mldonkey
> samhain
> bacula
> boxbackup
> 
finger, telnet and ssh are probably other candidates. (though not too
many people set up boxes without a ssh server these days).

++ to this, I have always found it a little absurd having dhcpd
installed on my laptop just for dhclient.

George Shapovalov wrote:
> Of course this multiplies the number of packages to support, if such situation 
> is common. However the solution you describe can be considered "clean" only 
> after #2272 is finally resolved..
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2272
I doubt whether any devs would argue against USE based dependencies.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Roy Marples]

On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually
> only want one or the other - and rarely both.
>

Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we 
install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop 
server only compoment from installing.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Luca Barbato]

Patrick McLean wrote:
>>
> finger, telnet and ssh are probably other candidates. (though not too
> many people set up boxes without a ssh server these days).
> 
> ++ to this, I have always found it a little absurd having dhcpd
> installed on my laptop just for dhclient.

dhcpcd could be a better temp solution =)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1677 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:10 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only 
> want one or the other - and rarely both.
> 
> A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. 
> Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show 
> what I want, or not want to build.
> 
> A quick scan through the use flags show no real consistency, so here's what I 
> propose
> 
> USE client server
> client - just build the client - duh
> server - just build the server - duh
> client and server OR neither then build both.
> 
> Other packages to possably beneift
> udhcp
> mldonkey
> samhain
> bacula
> boxbackup
> 
> Interestingly, many packages have a server USE flag but not a client one - 
> maybe make both a global USE flag?
> 
> Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts?

(Yeah, I know, repeating our IRC conversation.)

Bug #12499

The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary
distributions.  We don't want to have to have separate
client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that
Gentoo has.  The default should *always* be to install the package as it
was intended from upstream, completely intact.  Now, it has started to
become a practice to have a "minimal" USE flag on certain packages that
reduces the functionality to the bare client portion.  I see no real
problem with this, so long as the default is to always build/install the
full package.

That's my $0.02 on the matter.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:10:51 +0100
Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
> usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> 
> A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and
> server. Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE
> flags here to show what I want, or not want to build.
> 
> A quick scan through the use flags show no real consistency, so
> here's what I propose
> 
> USE client server
> client - just build the client - duh
> server - just build the server - duh
> client and server OR neither then build both.

Doing this by USE flag would cause problems I think; if other stuff
depends on the server or the client, you get USE-flag problems
with portage dependencies met but the actual dependency not met.  We
have some of this sort of thing already - which manifests with ebuilds
aborting in pkg_setup if they detect that a dependency wasn't emerged
with the necessary USE flags.

A better approach in this case, IMO, is to split it into two ebuilds -
well, three if you keep the existing package as a meta-package
depending on both client and server.  So you would have:

net-misc/dhcp-client

net-misc/dhcp-server

net-misc/dhcp - empty but for RDEPEND on the above.


A similar thing already happens with net-dns/bind and
net-dns/bind-tools, which are both built from the same upstream tarball
but one installs the server, the other installs just the client
programs.


> 
> Other packages to possably beneift
> udhcp
> mldonkey
> samhain
> bacula
> boxbackup
> 
> Interestingly, many packages have a server USE flag but not a client
> one - maybe make both a global USE flag?
> 
> Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks
> 


-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 712 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary
> distributions.  We don't want to have to have separate
> client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that
> Gentoo has.  The default should *always* be to install the package as it
> was intended from upstream, completely intact.  Now, it has started to
> become a practice to have a "minimal" USE flag on certain packages that
> reduces the functionality to the bare client portion.  I see no real
> problem with this, so long as the default is to always build/install the
> full package.

I suppose we should get the "server" flag on cvs changed to "minimal," then.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 652 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually
> > only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> >
> 
> Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we 
> install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop 
> server only compoment from installing.

Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice.

Should this become a policy?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 330 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice.
> 
> Should this become a policy?

I'd say so, since this discussion regularly comes up again, and how we
do it is really an expression of the Gentoo philosophy and our
differences from a typical binary distribution.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Roy Marples]

On Friday 09 June 2006 20:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
> > > usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> >
> > Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we
> > install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop
> > server only compoment from installing.
>
> Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice.
>
> Should this become a policy?

I think so, as many packages provide such a split and it would make choosing 
flags a little easier :)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
> > > usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> >
> > Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we
> > install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop
> > server only compoment from installing.
>
> Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice.
>
> Should this become a policy?

i dont think it should ... minimal has a very floating definition and varies 
widely based on the package
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 960 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
> > > > usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> > >
> > > Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we
> > > install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop
> > > server only compoment from installing.
> >
> > Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice.
> >
> > Should this become a policy?
> 
> i dont think it should ... minimal has a very floating definition and varies 
> widely based on the package

See my RFC for how this is handled.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?

Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 
ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that 
the dhcp builds and installs.

The minimal flag currently controls this anyway - you always get the client 
but the server is optional. And it's easier this way I think as it also 
mirrors upstream which is something we strive to achieve.

Thanks

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 749 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> > want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?
> 
> Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 
> ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that 
> the dhcp builds and installs.

There also is the fun part of how seperation of pkgs actually is 
accomplished- have to maintain a list of which files go where.

Manually.

And because of FEATURES=collision-protect, you have to verify the 
bugger, and update it for every verbump.

Lot of manual work. :)

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org> schrieb:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> > want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?
> 
> Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that 
> maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 
> 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs.

Okay, but they're maintained at the same time. 

Let's see where the extra work could come from: 

+ changes in build options. okay, have to type some things twice.
  adds 5mins
+ three packages have to be tested now. today one package has to 
  be tested in three variants. is there really more work ?

The 3rd package is mostly copy-and-paste, since doesn't actually
do anything. It's just rdeps based on useflags. Just an multiplexer.

On the other hand I see some more changes on an split:
Let's say, in a newer version, there's an interesting improvement 
in the server, but an bad bug in the client. Currently the client
would block the server, just for buerocrativ reasons.
After a split, both part-packages can evolve separately.

<snip> 

> The minimal flag currently controls this anyway - you always get 
> the client but the server is optional. 

But it's very unclear. Ask around in the user list, who knows what 
"minimal" in this special case means (without extra reading the 
documentation). Such useflags should be obvious, but "minimal" isnt.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2122 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:55:28PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org> schrieb:
> > On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> > > want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?
> > 
> > Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that 
> > maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 
> > 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs.
> 
> Okay, but they're maintained at the same time. 
> 
> Let's see where the extra work could come from: 
> 
> + changes in build options. okay, have to type some things twice.
>   adds 5mins
> + three packages have to be tested now. today one package has to 
>   be tested in three variants. is there really more work ?
> 
> The 3rd package is mostly copy-and-paste, since doesn't actually
> do anything. It's just rdeps based on useflags. Just an multiplexer.
> 
> On the other hand I see some more changes on an split:
> Let's say, in a newer version, there's an interesting improvement 
> in the server, but an bad bug in the client. Currently the client
> would block the server, just for buerocrativ reasons.
> After a split, both part-packages can evolve separately.

To do that, you have to seperate any libs used between the two.  In 
such a pkg, there *should* be a common lib- so you're suggesting 
either static linkage of said code (disk but more importantly mem 
bloat), or so renaming (further divergance from upstream, more issues 
in glsa handling).

Yet *more* manual work.

You want this, implement it in an overlay.

You get what you want, and if you manage to make it not suck the big 
one, hey, maybe you might convince a few people.

Either way, people aren't going to yield- put in the work to prove 
them wrong rather then just trying to talk them into the ground 
please.

Besides... pushing this hard for something, you better be willing to 
do the work yourself- can't expect others to do what you want when 
they disagree.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Simon Stelling]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> But it's very unclear. Ask around in the user list, who knows what 
> "minimal" in this special case means (without extra reading the 
> documentation). Such useflags should be obvious, but "minimal" isnt.

"without extra reading the documentation"? Documentation is there to be read!

That being said, server/client flags are nice, but not really applicable until 
we have per-package default USE flags, which is soon I hope.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> schrieb:

<snip>

> To do that, you have to seperate any libs used between the two.  
> In such a pkg, there *should* be a common lib- so you're suggesting 

If there's any (noticable amount of) common code, yes of course.

<snip> 

> Yet *more* manual work.

Not for the gentoo devs. Either the upstream does that or OSS-QM.

<snip>

> You want this, implement it in an overlay.

I'm doing so. Maybe you could give me some quick advise:

How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ?
I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to 
apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download
the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced
for applying ?


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Thomas Cort]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:46:08 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ?
> I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to 
> apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download
> the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced
> for applying ?

This list is not the 'teach me how to write ebuilds' mailing list. If you
want help writing ebuilds, #gentoo-dev-help on irc.freenode.net is the
place for it. You should read the following documents all the way
through before asking for help: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml

-Thomas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Joshua Nichols]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ?
> I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to 
> apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download
> the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced
> for applying ?
>
>   
You should be able to put it in SRC_URI, and it'll get downloaded. It
will then be available in ${DISTDIR} iirc... so you can just go:

epatch ${DISTDIR}/something.patch


-- 
Joshua Nichols
Gentoo/Java - Project Lead

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Colin Kingsley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 234 bytes --]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:

<trolling removed>

Would everybody please stop responding to this obvious troll? I admit
its very amusing reading about his clear lack of understanding, but
don't we have better things to do?

Colin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]