-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Petteri Räty wrote: > Peter Volkov wrote: >> Hi. How do we handle packages that provide client, server, and >> possibly extra tools/libraries? Do we split packages like binary >> distros do or do we use USE flags? What USE flags? Currently some >> packages are split other use client, server or minimal USE >> flag(s). >> >> Back in 2006 similar problem was discussed many times with no >> final resolution - it was hard to ban split packages since >> portage had no support for USE deps. Also some packages started >> to utilize 'minimal' USE flag to force users read USE flag >> description and thus reduce its usage and lower number of bugs >> due to not-installed parts of package. >> >> With EAPI=2 both use deps and USE defaults (if necessary) are >> here so it's possible to introduce some guidelines: >> >> 1. do not split packages; use USE flags and USE deps. 2. stop >> using minimal USE flag to build client or sever only. >> >> >> So are there any good reasons to split packages? >> >> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/12499 but many similar disscussions were >> on this list... >> > > I think a good guideline is: 1. Use a single pkg when upstream > releases server and client in one bundle
As always, there are exceptions. I think most users agree that the decision of the KDE team to move from the 13 tarballs upstream releases to the ~300 ebuilds we have in Gentoo was a good move. From the maintainers POV there can be no doubt about it. I know KDE doesn't provide servers + clients, but I think it's Gentoo's extreme case of split ebuilds. > 2. Use separate packages when upstream releases client and server > separately > > I think the minimal use flag should not be used for this purpose > any more. > > Regards, Petteri > I also would like to recall the old discussion about the "usefulness" or "correctness" of the "client" and "server" use flags. IIRC, the handbook should still list those as not appropriate for use flags, given the myriad of different meanings they can carry - even though use.local.desc can help here. I wonder how many users would like to see mysql move to a split model (no criticism intended to anyone that has worked on it over the years) or what users feel about the split done on postgresql. Looking at the ebuilds (I've been using mysql for years and never used postgresql), this is one case where upstream releases a single tarball and one team moved to split ebuilds and the other keeps using monos. It would be interesting to hear the maintainers' opinion. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAksADmsACgkQcAWygvVEyAK5CwCdG5GCExo2Pt/rTqwTQhXzCmJ6 M9wAoJwGh6UPr0J3hnCppj/bBaP1Tlix =eoNk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
