1 |
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
2 |
> On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:19, Grobian wrote: |
3 |
>> I agree with you, but I don't follow your reasoning. Portage IMHO |
4 |
>> expects it's own (GNU) find and xargs. Or well, not Portage, but devs |
5 |
>> that just create ebuilds on Gentoo Linux and don't mind about your bugs |
6 |
>> for sticking to a common subset of supported flags. |
7 |
> No, people got already stabbed for using GNU find options in ebuilds, as they |
8 |
> are not portable and IIRC this was already clear a lot of time ago. |
9 |
> And for the rest, give me the ones who don't care about my bugs, and I'll see |
10 |
> with their herd/project/whatever will be. |
11 |
|
12 |
Well, I guess that was a misconception of mine then, and it's obvious |
13 |
how things stick together here. There is no reason whatsoever to use |
14 |
(GNU) find and xargs on OSX (as with any OS that has find or xargs that |
15 |
supports the subset of commands you defined to be sufficient). |
16 |
|
17 |
I think we can make it an official statement, that as soon as a certain |
18 |
application doesn't meet this requirement of the defined minimal |
19 |
functionality (like OSX's sed?) that it should be replaced with another |
20 |
one, usually done through portage as it is the simplest. |
21 |
TODO: define the minimal requirements. |
22 |
|
23 |
>> Which is nice. Why don't we (OSX) use this ebuild? (If it indeed does |
24 |
>> what I think it does.) |
25 |
> Because it's not in main tree? Remember when I said you should start looking |
26 |
> at the gentoo-alt overlay? |
27 |
|
28 |
Right... hit me. I got it checked out... maybe I don't get checkin |
29 |
messages from it? |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Fabian Groffen |
34 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead |
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |