| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:48:54 +0100
|
| 5 |
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> Dne 27.1.2011 17:30, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 7 |
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:19:51 -0600 |
| 8 |
> > Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> Probably OT, sorry. Isn't it time we gained this concept of |
| 10 |
> >> "noarch" for packages that only install text files or packages |
| 11 |
> >> that don't compile anything... |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > No, since there's no such thing as an app that's guaranteed to be |
| 14 |
> > portable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Yeah like ebuild consisting of one posix-sh script or ebuild that |
| 17 |
> installs only png files... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It might have its use. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
...where the POSIX sh script assumes that integers are large enough for
|
| 22 |
64 bit values, or where the POSIX sh script calls a shell utility that
|
| 23 |
has a bug on certain archs that hasn't otherwise been a problem, or
|
| 24 |
where the POSIX sh script assumes things about the filesystem lib
|
| 25 |
directory layout that aren't true on some archs, or where the POSIX sh
|
| 26 |
script fishes around in /proc for something that's not there on some
|
| 27 |
archs, or where the package's build system depends upon a particular
|
| 28 |
version of 'make' that has been masked on some archs due to bugs, or
|
| 29 |
where the developer who thinks that a package is 'obviously' portable
|
| 30 |
is ignorant of portability issues.
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
- --
|
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iEYEARECAAYFAk1Bo3cACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHGfwCfUX8AbFiR80iVZkGpo9Ip6NfX
|
| 38 |
CdYAoJvk1Zb940y24iNpcGbknpnU71xn
|
| 39 |
=6fHx
|
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives