From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N7ew5-0003pd-FQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:50:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07CF5E0A53; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:50:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.fr.smartjog.net (mx.fr.smartjog.net [91.197.165.186]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B90E0A53 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:50:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.fr.smartjog.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C304657392 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:50:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smartjog.com Received: from mx.fr.smartjog.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.dmz-ext.fr.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id GJftIJaCL8XX for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:50:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from naru.perronet.esiee.net (APuteaux-552-1-111-125.w90-35.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.35.70.125]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.fr.smartjog.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED46957308 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:50:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from keitaro.perronet.esiee.net (keitaro-4.local [10.42.0.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by naru.perronet.esiee.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24C563C91A for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:50:09 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] client/server consistency: USE flags / split packages From: Gilles Dartiguelongue In-Reply-To: <1257362741.20584.2322.camel@tablet> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:50:07 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <57CD634A-0CD7-42DB-822A-ADEF9EC62DCD@gentoo.org> References: <1257349497.20584.2085.camel@tablet> <1257352489.6780.433.camel@localhost> <1257362741.20584.2322.camel@tablet> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) X-Archives-Salt: 2d1adc2d-d1b2-44ad-b415-7e5ac652e40a X-Archives-Hash: 7632f2b5bf8096ea06b4e203f1ff79ff Le 4 nov. 2009 =C3=A0 20:25, Peter Volkov a =C3=A9crit : > =D0=92 =D0=A1=D1=80=D0=B4, 04/11/2009 =D0=B2 17:34 +0100, Tiziano = M=C3=BCller =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2009, 18:44 +0300 schrieb Peter Volkov: >>> So are there any good reasons to split packages? >> >> In environments with a staging server and binary packages, yes. in case where different libs are needed in the stack but in ways that =20= makes it do circular deps if you use an unsplitted package (think =20 gvfs, libsoup, libproxy libsoup, and stuff like that). I think it's generally a good idea to split when the following =20 conditions are met: * maintainer/herd has enough time to maintain the split (some splits =20= can be time consuming) * upstream behaves nicely in the split case (splitting stuff on our =20= own is shooting ourselves in the feet usually as is upstream not =20 wanting to hear about it) * split benefits the user has it allows more flexibility (don't tell =20= me about configure times, we are gentoo and flexibility most often =20 wins over buildtime or we'd be somewhere else imho) --=20 Gilles Dartiguelongue Gnome team