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
pgpMPLCpqCra8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
