On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:10:51 +0100 Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users > usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. > > A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and > server. Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE > flags here to show what I want, or not want to build. > > A quick scan through the use flags show no real consistency, so > here's what I propose > > USE client server > client - just build the client - duh > server - just build the server - duh > client and server OR neither then build both. Doing this by USE flag would cause problems I think; if other stuff depends on the server or the client, you get USE-flag problems with portage dependencies met but the actual dependency not met. We have some of this sort of thing already - which manifests with ebuilds aborting in pkg_setup if they detect that a dependency wasn't emerged with the necessary USE flags. A better approach in this case, IMO, is to split it into two ebuilds - well, three if you keep the existing package as a meta-package depending on both client and server. So you would have: net-misc/dhcp-client net-misc/dhcp-server net-misc/dhcp - empty but for RDEPEND on the above. A similar thing already happens with net-dns/bind and net-dns/bind-tools, which are both built from the same upstream tarball but one installs the server, the other installs just the client programs. > > Other packages to possably beneift > udhcp > mldonkey > samhain > bacula > boxbackup > > Interestingly, many packages have a server USE flag but not a client > one - maybe make both a global USE flag? > > Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts? > > Thanks > -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
