1 |
On 11/8/05, Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > >My opinion actually was to just let it be ~ppc-macos, since there are |
4 |
> > >no known problems with the OS provided find and xargs. When we have a |
5 |
> > >prefix, we can just install the normal GNU find and xargs (without g |
6 |
> > >prefix) and have maximum compatibility with the other arches on that |
7 |
> > >point. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Agreed 100%. |
10 |
|
11 |
Also agreed. I'm all for maximum Gentoo-compatibility. I would |
12 |
prefer all utils that Gentoo expects to be present, be installed and |
13 |
used by Gentoo in its own prefix, without any name changes. The less |
14 |
Apple-specific modifications needed, the better. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Doesn't that mean that new code that comes to depend on the gfind and |
17 |
> gxargs usage will also have to be changed at that later date? If you avoid |
18 |
> this policy now, you avoid that problem later. No-one has yet come up with |
19 |
> an inadequacy of BSD xargs and find, so why do it? Just for the sake of a |
20 |
> misguided policy? |
21 |
|
22 |
A lack of examples on your part does not a misguided policy make. |
23 |
Have you ever used both BSD and GNU utils extensively? Even something |
24 |
as simple as 'ls' doesn't have the same behaviour and flags between |
25 |
them, not to mention that each version can have changes introduced |
26 |
upstream without warning. What do you have to gain from using a BSD |
27 |
util? Saving 100KB in disk space? There's a lot to gain by |
28 |
installing what Gentoo expects: it may actually work. |
29 |
|
30 |
As for xargs specifically, take a peek at the synopsis from the BSD & |
31 |
Gentoo man pages: |
32 |
|
33 |
(BSD/OS X) xargs SYNOPSIS |
34 |
xargs [-0pt] [-E eofstr] [-I replstr [-R replacements]] [-J replstr] |
35 |
[-L number] [-n number [-x]] [-s size] [utility [argument ...]] |
36 |
|
37 |
(Gentoo) xargs SYNOPSIS |
38 |
xargs [-0prtx] [-e[eof-str]] [-i[replace-str]] |
39 |
[-l[max-lines]] [-n max-args] [-s |
40 |
max-chars] [-P max-procs] [--null] [--eof[=eof-str]] |
41 |
[--replace[=replace-str]] |
42 |
[--max-lines[=max-lines]] [--interactive] |
43 |
[--max-chars=max-chars] [--verbose] |
44 |
[--exit] [--max-procs=max-procs] [--max-args=max-args] |
45 |
[--no-run-if-empty] [--ver- |
46 |
sion] [--help] [command [initial-arguments]] |
47 |
|
48 |
See any potential problems? |
49 |
|
50 |
> But, it seems to me that there is a good compromise, along the lines of |
51 |
> Diego's eselect proposal (similar to Debian's /etc/alternatives). We could |
52 |
> use eselect or similar to maintain a "symlink farm" of g-prefixed symlinks |
53 |
> to the GNU binaries. A baselayout revision could safely permit a |
54 |
> Gentoo-wide policy whereby such gfoo binaries could be called from any |
55 |
> boot script, tool script etc. In this way, you can avoid having to special |
56 |
> case the distro in ebuilds and scripts, and you can avoid pulling in |
57 |
> redundant deps on systems that ship the same binaries without g-prefixes. |
58 |
> On those systems, the vendor package could just be "eselected" to create |
59 |
> the symlinks, and indeed the baselayout for such systems could ship with |
60 |
> the symlinks already in place. |
61 |
|
62 |
Assuming I understand your point correctly (which is debatable), that |
63 |
is an awfully complicated solution whose primary aim seems to ensure |
64 |
that you don't confuse /some/prefix/bin/someutil with |
65 |
/usr/bin/someutil by turning one into a symlink to the other. If you |
66 |
need to figure out which util is called by default in your shell |
67 |
session, try using 'which'. If you need to _ensure_ that you use OS X |
68 |
utils while in a shell, a simpler solution would be to not put the |
69 |
gentoo directories in $PATH in the first place. |
70 |
|
71 |
> That is the only way I can see for compatibility both with the variety of |
72 |
> Darwin distros, and with the variety of Gentoo OS's. |
73 |
|
74 |
Why would Gentoo need to stay compatible with "Darwin distros"? OS X |
75 |
isn't going anywhere if you install Gentoo in a prefix. The whole |
76 |
idea is to have a Gentoo package manager installing Gentoo stuff in |
77 |
it's own little corner of the filesystem. We DO want to keep |
78 |
gentoo-osx as compatible as possible with all the __other gentoo |
79 |
arch's__ so that we can leverage all the good work being done for |
80 |
those arches. |
81 |
|
82 |
Kudos to Kito et al. for all the hard work so far. It's exciting to |
83 |
hear the news about the prefix-patched portage progress. (how's that |
84 |
for alliteration?) |
85 |
|
86 |
~ Nathan |
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |