| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17-09-2008 10:41:07 +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> By the way, I'm against this stuff. I rather see a PATH solution |
| 5 |
>>> involved. Portage already has a DEFAULT_PATH, and if someone refuses to |
| 6 |
>>> install patch, one could always use a special directory with symlinks to |
| 7 |
>>> the g-versions, e.g. patch -> /usr/sfw/bin/gpatch such that |
| 8 |
>>> Portage/eclass/ebuilds don't have to bother about this at all. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> patch is installed and I would agree with you, but in certain |
| 12 |
>> circumstances using the GNU tools are broken. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Then if that is the case, Portage/eclass/ebuild relies on that |
| 16 |
> brokenness. I'm not saying you should have the same PATH as Portage. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
GNU tools always behaved as expected on Linux. The brokeness is |
| 19 |
platform specific in my case. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you use Solaris |
| 20 |
in production and I'm just trying to make the situation easier. If |
| 21 |
someone will review the patch I'll make it up, but don't want to waste |
| 22 |
more of anyone's time on this. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thanks |
Archives