On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:56:51AM +0100, Thomas R?sner wrote: > 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. > > 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? It depends hugely on the structure of the code-base. In MySQL for example, if you wanted to build only the server, you'd still need a big hunk of the shared code (it's one set of code, that is compiled in two different ways, once for the client, and once for the server), and building the server actually requires building the client anyway (plus the proper shared libs) thus splitting out the source for lib, client, server does not make sense.
One of the other arguments I have against the split, and it applies to both CVS and MySQL - is that if you don't build the server, you cannot use src_test. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpzzGDlAhsjl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
