| 1 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 18:27 -0400, René Rhéaume wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Still probably no harm in having a minimalistic perl around in the |
| 5 |
> > > portage tree. We just cant promote such ideas and being any part of |
| 6 |
> > > proper embedded solutions due to file size and memory/cpu consumption |
| 7 |
> > > that goes along with using perl itself. |
| 8 |
> > Exactly, I would like a minimalistic Perl, not pushing Perl into |
| 9 |
> > embedded systems really. I just thought embedded projects like cutting |
| 10 |
> > the fat. Sorry for the inconvenience my wording caused. As miniperl |
| 11 |
> > means trouble, I will try the perl-base way. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You should file a bug at bugs.gentoo.org for perl@gentoo when you have |
| 14 |
> ebuild patches ready to go. You will probably want to key this |
| 15 |
> functionality on the minimal USE flag perhaps. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
One of the problems perl exposes (bugged one maintainer, but no answer), |
| 18 |
is that each time you rebuild it, it builds .ph versions of all the |
| 19 |
installed .h headers (the more pkgs in the mean time on the dev box, the |
| 20 |
more files). All distros I have seen limit the creation to some |
| 21 |
well-known/really needed files (they check if a pkg is installed, get the |
| 22 |
list of headers from pkg, and build only those). Such a behaviour could be |
| 23 |
also desired at least for USE=minimal. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Peter |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2 |
| 29 |
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2 |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
Archives