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 ) id 1FomN1-0006ZE-7r for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:10:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k59J776T031904; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:07:07 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k59J1k7o013001 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:01:47 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.115] (c-67-171-150-177.hsd1.or.comcast.net [67.171.150.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1986522F for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:01:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4489C4DD.6020108@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:58:37 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060609) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one? References: <200606091410.51183.uberlord@gentoo.org> <1149878957.22473.73.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> In-Reply-To: <1149878957.22473.73.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig35C07AAF73AE374940C3A92F" X-Archives-Salt: 68e66d09-7305-4572-b000-142e31cc6297 X-Archives-Hash: 2417b6a8e7662918aa39d3b90babc7e1 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig35C07AAF73AE374940C3A92F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 i= t > 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 th= e > full package. I suppose we should get the "server" flag on cvs changed to "minimal," th= en. Thanks, Donnie --------------enig35C07AAF73AE374940C3A92F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEicTgXVaO67S1rtsRAk+iAJ9Cr6X2mgTBm87eFz9XveW8nUzfqwCg9z7R P1OKsrGEeTrBZnshTcPSq2s= =DsW1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig35C07AAF73AE374940C3A92F-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list