| 1 |
On 17-09-2008 10:41:07 +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote: |
| 2 |
>> By the way, I'm against this stuff. I rather see a PATH solution |
| 3 |
>> involved. Portage already has a DEFAULT_PATH, and if someone refuses to |
| 4 |
>> install patch, one could always use a special directory with symlinks to |
| 5 |
>> the g-versions, e.g. patch -> /usr/sfw/bin/gpatch such that |
| 6 |
>> Portage/eclass/ebuilds don't have to bother about this at all. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> patch is installed and I would agree with you, but in certain |
| 9 |
> circumstances using the GNU tools are broken. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Then if that is the case, Portage/eclass/ebuild relies on that |
| 12 |
brokenness. I'm not saying you should have the same PATH as Portage. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 17 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives