| 1 |
On 17-09-2008 10:21:17 +0200, Santiago M. Mola wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? |
| 3 |
> >> See the FreeBSD profile for an example. |
| 4 |
> >> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in work so |
| 7 |
> > modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You'd still need to create an OpenSolaris profile. While you're at it, |
| 10 |
> you can create a profile.bashrc with the required modifications. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I don't see any reason to not do the gpatch change, but it looks like |
| 13 |
> unecessary to me because you already have simpler ways to solve the |
| 14 |
> problem. So, requiring others to do a significant useless amount of |
| 15 |
> work when you can solve it with just a line is not fair. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
From some experience, I can tell that an alias is not sufficient to |
| 18 |
cover all cases, and will result in random failures because you only |
| 19 |
notice too late patch is used and not gpatch. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
By the way, I'm against this stuff. I rather see a PATH solution |
| 22 |
involved. Portage already has a DEFAULT_PATH, and if someone refuses to |
| 23 |
install patch, one could always use a special directory with symlinks to |
| 24 |
the g-versions, e.g. patch -> /usr/sfw/bin/gpatch such that |
| 25 |
Portage/eclass/ebuilds don't have to bother about this at all. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 30 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives