Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote: If you want an dhcp client, install dhcp-client, if you want an dhcp server, install dhcp-server. Could it be simpler ? Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs. The minimal flag currently controls this anyway - you always get the client but the server is optional. And it's easier this way I think as it also mirrors upstream which is something we strive to achieve. Thanks -- Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote: If you want an dhcp client, install dhcp-client, if you want an dhcp server, install dhcp-server. Could it be simpler ? Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs. There also is the fun part of how seperation of pkgs actually is accomplished- have to maintain a list of which files go where. Manually. And because of FEATURES=collision-protect, you have to verify the bugger, and update it for every verbump. Lot of manual work. :) ~harring pgpRVY3EYmLoh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
* Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote: If you want an dhcp client, install dhcp-client, if you want an dhcp server, install dhcp-server. Could it be simpler ? Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs. Okay, but they're maintained at the same time. Let's see where the extra work could come from: + changes in build options. okay, have to type some things twice. adds 5mins + three packages have to be tested now. today one package has to be tested in three variants. is there really more work ? The 3rd package is mostly copy-and-paste, since doesn't actually do anything. It's just rdeps based on useflags. Just an multiplexer. On the other hand I see some more changes on an split: Let's say, in a newer version, there's an interesting improvement in the server, but an bad bug in the client. Currently the client would block the server, just for buerocrativ reasons. After a split, both part-packages can evolve separately. snip The minimal flag currently controls this anyway - you always get the client but the server is optional. But it's very unclear. Ask around in the user list, who knows what minimal in this special case means (without extra reading the documentation). Such useflags should be obvious, but minimal isnt. cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:55:28PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote: If you want an dhcp client, install dhcp-client, if you want an dhcp server, install dhcp-server. Could it be simpler ? Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs. Okay, but they're maintained at the same time. Let's see where the extra work could come from: + changes in build options. okay, have to type some things twice. adds 5mins + three packages have to be tested now. today one package has to be tested in three variants. is there really more work ? The 3rd package is mostly copy-and-paste, since doesn't actually do anything. It's just rdeps based on useflags. Just an multiplexer. On the other hand I see some more changes on an split: Let's say, in a newer version, there's an interesting improvement in the server, but an bad bug in the client. Currently the client would block the server, just for buerocrativ reasons. After a split, both part-packages can evolve separately. To do that, you have to seperate any libs used between the two. In such a pkg, there *should* be a common lib- so you're suggesting either static linkage of said code (disk but more importantly mem bloat), or so renaming (further divergance from upstream, more issues in glsa handling). Yet *more* manual work. You want this, implement it in an overlay. You get what you want, and if you manage to make it not suck the big one, hey, maybe you might convince a few people. Either way, people aren't going to yield- put in the work to prove them wrong rather then just trying to talk them into the ground please. Besides... pushing this hard for something, you better be willing to do the work yourself- can't expect others to do what you want when they disagree. ~harring pgp18Ovu0jbO1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Enrico Weigelt wrote: But it's very unclear. Ask around in the user list, who knows what minimal in this special case means (without extra reading the documentation). Such useflags should be obvious, but minimal isnt. without extra reading the documentation? Documentation is there to be read! That being said, server/client flags are nice, but not really applicable until we have per-package default USE flags, which is soon I hope. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
* Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: snip To do that, you have to seperate any libs used between the two. In such a pkg, there *should* be a common lib- so you're suggesting If there's any (noticable amount of) common code, yes of course. snip Yet *more* manual work. Not for the gentoo devs. Either the upstream does that or OSS-QM. snip You want this, implement it in an overlay. I'm doing so. Maybe you could give me some quick advise: How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ? I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced for applying ? cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:46:08 +0200 Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ? I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced for applying ? This list is not the 'teach me how to write ebuilds' mailing list. If you want help writing ebuilds, #gentoo-dev-help on irc.freenode.net is the place for it. You should read the following documents all the way through before asking for help: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml -Thomas pgpEE1WfwrHIr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ?
I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to
apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download
the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced
for applying ?
You should be able to put it in SRC_URI, and it'll get downloaded. It
will then be available in ${DISTDIR} iirc... so you can just go:
epatch ${DISTDIR}/something.patch
--
Joshua Nichols
Gentoo/Java - Project Lead
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Enrico Weigelt wrote: trolling removed Would everybody please stop responding to this obvious troll? I admit its very amusing reading about his clear lack of understanding, but don't we have better things to do? Colin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
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. 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 -- Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
п'ятниця, 9. червень 2006 15:10, Roy Marples Ви написали: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. [skip] USE client server client - just build the client - duh server - just build the server - duh client and server OR neither then build both. The problem with this approach is when you have dependencies on a particular client or server. Then you cannot sipy depend on a package (with present portage) and instead you need to do a hackery detection and bail out in pkg_setup. I think this is the reason why, for example, bind comes as two packages: bind (for everything) and bind-tools. Of course this multiplies the number of packages to support, if such situation is common. However the solution you describe can be considered clean only after #2272 is finally resolved.. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2272 George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Roy Marples 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. 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? My thought is wait until portage-2.2_alpha where we will have default USE flags. Then I can see putting client/server flags up and having both be default, letting the user turn off clients and servers in /etc/portage/package.use. Thanks -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Roy Marples wrote: USE client server client - just build the client - duh server - just build the server - duh client and server OR neither then build both. Other packages to possably beneift udhcp mldonkey samhain bacula boxbackup finger, telnet and ssh are probably other candidates. (though not too many people set up boxes without a ssh server these days). ++ to this, I have always found it a little absurd having dhcpd installed on my laptop just for dhclient. George Shapovalov wrote: Of course this multiplies the number of packages to support, if such situation is common. However the solution you describe can be considered clean only after #2272 is finally resolved.. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2272 I doubt whether any devs would argue against USE based dependencies. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Patrick McLean wrote: finger, telnet and ssh are probably other candidates. (though not too many people set up boxes without a ssh server these days). ++ to this, I have always found it a little absurd having dhcpd installed on my laptop just for dhclient. dhcpcd could be a better temp solution =) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:10 +0100, Roy Marples 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. 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? (Yeah, I know, repeating our IRC conversation.) Bug #12499 The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary distributions. We don't want to have to have separate client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that Gentoo has. The default should *always* be to install the package as it was intended from upstream, completely intact. Now, it has started to become a practice to have a minimal USE flag on certain packages that reduces the functionality to the bare client portion. I see no real problem with this, so long as the default is to always build/install the full package. That's my $0.02 on the matter. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Chris Gianelloni wrote: The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary distributions. We don't want to have to have separate client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that Gentoo has. The default should *always* be to install the package as it was intended from upstream, completely intact. Now, it has started to become a practice to have a minimal USE flag on certain packages that reduces the functionality to the bare client portion. I see no real problem with this, so long as the default is to always build/install the full package. I suppose we should get the server flag on cvs changed to minimal, then. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop server only compoment from installing. Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice. Should this become a policy? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
Chris Gianelloni wrote: Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice. Should this become a policy? I'd say so, since this discussion regularly comes up again, and how we do it is really an expression of the Gentoo philosophy and our differences from a typical binary distribution. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Friday 09 June 2006 20:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop server only compoment from installing. Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice. Should this become a policy? I think so, as many packages provide such a split and it would make choosing flags a little easier :) -- Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop server only compoment from installing. Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice. Should this become a policy? i dont think it should ... minimal has a very floating definition and varies widely based on the package -mike pgp70xhe57Py6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we install both by default and the minimal USE flag should be used to stop server only compoment from installing. Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice. Should this become a policy? i dont think it should ... minimal has a very floating definition and varies widely based on the package See my RFC for how this is handled. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
