On 08/20/2015 09:32 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:03:26 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> As an alternative, we would use USE=client and USE=server along with >>> proper IUSE defaults to control client & server builds >>> appropriately. Both flags use positive logic, and REQUIRED_USE='|| >>> ( client server )' is rather clear. >> >> That increases the burden of managing configuration and further abuses >> REQUIRED_USE where it wasn't meant to be used in the first place. >> >> USE="dedicated" has worked fine for games users and no one has ever >> complained. In fact, it is a _very_ convenient USE flag, which means >> "no manual fiddling, this will be dedicated for sure". > > I'm don't feel very strongly about it but as someone who is considering > working on more games in the future, I like what mgorny has suggested. > I don't think the micro-managing argument flies so well here because > these flags are much less common than flags like qt. client and server > would probably be enabled by default in most cases and I doubt there > are any games where you can't have both. If there were a conflict then > you would want to make a concious decision as it's more significant > than choosing a GUI toolkit. >
So what is the gain? * introducing more REQUIRED_USE constraints (because you must not disable both client and server) * breaking existing configuration of users * migrating a lot of ebuilds for no practical gain Can we please have QA not dictate us how we model our USE flags? Games _are_ consistently handled.
