Should we have a global server flag?

steveL · Last edited by steveL on Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:28 am; edited 1 time in total

Was: Which pkgs need client/server flags?
Can we get suggestions for pkgs that need client-server flags? The idea would be to have 2 new flags representing client and server side builds of stuff like mySQL, samba, LDAP, kerberos and so on.

Further, if you have a pkg that currently builds with minimal and is not one you would want to be split into client and server can you list that too?

See this topic for background, and if you want to discuss the merits of the case; this thread should just be for pkg suggestions. Can we try not to get into a row. Ta.

edit: add bg topic
edit: this is now just a poll on whether we should have a global server flag (see below.)

BarBaar · n00b Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 7

You already mentioned the most important ones, I believe:

- MySQL
- OpenLDAP
- Kerberos
- Samba..

DHCP could be another one, but there already is a dhcp and dhcpcd package.

Conan · Guru Joined: 02 Nov 2004 Posts: 360

There have beena number of discussions about this
clicky

steveL · Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:23 am Post subject:

steveL · Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:26 am Post subject:

There's been a bit more discussion about this, so i thought i'd bump this; can anyone who has a view please express it?

For the people who voted wtf? the question is about pkgs like database servers or samba, a windows networking server. For many of us we want to install just the client-side in order to access these services, but the counter-position is that we should just build everything. (God knows why.) Seven packages in the tree use a local server flag including cvs. euse -i is your friend ;)

I guess one problem might be where neither is specified, which to my mind would default to client, as people who want to build the server side typically know they do. An alternative would be simply to have the server flag as these pkgs do (which means no flag defaults to client-side.) That I think would be cool.

So changing it slightly, who's in favour of a global server flag which users can set for specific pkgs as required?

dev-zero · Retired Dev Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 6 Location: Zürich

Hi everyone

While I think that we need a solution there, the server/client USE-flag is in my opinion not the right solution. Not now and not if we finally get USE-based dependencies, I'd rather propose a sane splitting of packages (don't worry, I won't propose a -dev,-header,-common,-client,-server structure :-)

)

Rather than talking about introducing global USE-flags, we should discuss the different USE-cases and try to implement the most common ones.

For example:
Use-Case 1: The user installs kde and since he knows that he has to be able to browse samba-shares he sets the samba USE-flag.
Use-Case 2: The user builds binary packages for 300 machines where all of them need samba-support in kde and gnome and the users of two machines need the server as well.
Use-Case 3: The user builds a small home-server with samba shares.

UC-1 tells us to introduce a server USE-flag. But UC-2 rather implies to have seperate packages, namely: samba and samba-server. UC-3 implies either a serveronly USE-flag or the same as UC-2.
Result: To implement the USE-cases, splitting samba into two packages seems to be the way.
And this is also what I'm going to try in the next two weeks :-)

Cheers,
dev-zero

steveL · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Re: Why I voted "no"

dev-zero · Retired Dev Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 6 Location: Zürich

Hi steveL

Do you mind to spellcheck before posting next time? (if I'm not wrong, "/usr" is not a short version of "user" but a short version of "*nix system resources")

steveL · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: Why I voted "no"

sternklang · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject:

Given the relatively small number of packages we are talking about and the different server roles on a network, I think it makes more sense to split them into server/client packages if possible.

I can see use cases where you are running a desktop system but want to share files with windows pcs on the network, so need samba server and no other server. Or you need kerberos clients on some machines, SQL clients on some machines, SQL servers on a couple, samba clients on some machines, etc. If you end up having to put "client" and "server" flags for each package in package.use to control this, what advantage do you get over emerging the specific server/client packages each system needs?

The USE flag might be a simple solution for a home network with one clearly defined server doing everything, but for managing a larger business/university network separate packages seem to me to be the way to go.

steveL · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject:

sternklang · Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:32 am Post subject:

steveL · Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:35 am Post subject:

jesnow · l33t Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 856

Let me offer two more user cases:

UC 4: User is in a big organization and has *no* need for a server, as there are servers enough.
UC 5: User is building a small system on a laptop with limited disk capacity, and needs access to files hosted on his desktop.

In keepeing with the spirit of the samba package, you would want to have a full samba install be the default, and offer the USe flag 'samba-client-only' that would only build the client-side binaries.

My $0.02 as a longtime samba user who set up UC 5 by hand last week.

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-544664-highlight-.html

Jon

Drysh · Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:58 am Post subject:

I voted YES, but I'm reconsidering it now. IMHO:

Use flags are for things that affect the system. There is no point in creating a use flag if you have to set it diferently for each package. Consider the following:

You are setting a mix of win and linux systems for an office. You have a machine that will be your file server and will need to access your database server (so: samba server, mysql client). For the database server, you will need mysql server and samba client. For the desktops you will need both clients.

It's much easier to have different packages. It isn't something that will set your system as a whole. You will need to think if you need the server and/or the client for each package.

steveL · Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:27 am Post subject:

jesnow · l33t Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 856

Still the vast majority of machines are either clients or servers. If all you run is servers under linux
then ok, a server flag is useless. But if you have desktop users who are client only (X is a special case) then that flag will lead to a much slimmer system for them.

Drysh · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:44 am Post subject:

@steveL - Isn't it easier to have something called samba-server and another package for samba-client? Why would it be a use flag instead of multiple packages if you have to set for each package?

@jesnow - I don't see how. Instead of setting a use flag, you will just have to emerge the right packages.

steveL · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:35 am Post subject:

Conan · Guru Joined: 02 Nov 2004 Posts: 360

mm, and what about mysql?
In most cases the server is the part that is desired when it is emerged, not just the client.

steveL · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:34 am Post subject:

jesnow · l33t Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 856

Drysh · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

I ran into another problem today:
- I needed a machine that would run as a mysql server part of the time and as a mysql client the rest of it.

Using two separate packages: I could start the server and the client in one runlevel, but just the client in another. So switching the run level I could change a server into a client.

How is it possible with flags? Would every package have an option to select if it is running in server mode or client mode?

I used a similar strategy for apache some time ago (I needed it on server run level only). That made the machine faster while using client run level (well.. Not exactly faster, because I emerged some things that a server won't need, and added to the client run level).

steveL · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject:

Drysh · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject:

I know what USE flags are.

My question was, if for runlevel x we need the server, and for runlevel y we need the client, how do we do?

Using two packages, we add the server package in runlevel x and the cleint package in runlevel y.

If we start using use flags, they will be the same package. So, how do I set which behavior I want for each runlevel?

What's the advantage of using USE flags instead of having multiple packages?