| 1 |
"C. Bergström" <cbergstrom@×××××××××.com> said: |
| 2 |
> Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 17-09-2008 10:41:07 +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote: |
| 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 |
| 6 |
> >>> refuses to install patch, one could always use a special directory |
| 7 |
> >>> with symlinks to the g-versions, e.g. patch -> /usr/sfw/bin/gpatch |
| 8 |
> >>> such that Portage/eclass/ebuilds don't have to bother about this at |
| 9 |
> >>> all. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> patch is installed and I would agree with you, but in certain |
| 12 |
> >> circumstances using the GNU tools are broken. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Then if that is the case, Portage/eclass/ebuild relies on that |
| 15 |
> > brokenness. I'm not saying you should have the same PATH as Portage. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> GNU tools always behaved as expected on Linux. The brokeness is |
| 18 |
> platform specific in my case. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
please, also make sure this gets fixed. |
| 21 |
thanks for your work |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
kind regards |
| 24 |
Thilo |
Archives