On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 01:48 +0000, Steve Long wrote: > 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.
I wouldn't have too much of a problem with only a "server" USE flag, but I'd still prefer things were held off until USE-based dependencies. If we did decide on a USE=server flag, then it should also likely have USE=dedicated merged with it so there's only one flag for enabling server builds. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
