Thomas Rösner wrote: >> Once we have USE-based dependencies across the board, then yes. Until >> that time, we should really be building both client and server for *all* >> packages. > > I can understand that rationale for the client part, but which packages > would depend on the server part of e.g. MySQL if they could? > And building the server part to get the small client lib is a larger > PITA than building the client lib to get the server, no? > > In other words: this is a sound argument against the client use flag, > but I don't think it's quite as convincing regarding the server flag, > which is more important IMHO. > Yeah on reflection I think just a server flag would be better. There's a topic on the forum about it: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-525893.html
After all, people who want a server know they do. The default would thus be simply to build the client end. This is obviously why there are seven ebuilds including cvs doing this already with no complaints. > Btw, I agree that the best thing to do would be to prompt upstream to > split those packages (where it makes sense), which is the preferred way > to handle this here (at least I read this somewhere, does it still > apply?), but does anybody do that actually? To stay with the MySQL > example, did anyone try to suggest to MySQL AB that seperate releases > for the client part* would be nice? > I think the rationale is that people wanting a source download are either working on the code or distros who can sort themselves out (including splitting out header files.) It's only with gentoo that source download has become such an issue for linux afaics. A good thing imo. [er corrected my hastily misspelt topic] -- [email protected] mailing list
