| 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 |
Archives