Re: [gentoo-dev] Add bc back to the stage3

[Panagiotis Christopoulos]

On 11:24 Sat 27 Sep     , Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 09/27/14 11:19, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> > <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> >> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
> >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
> >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
> >>
> > To restate this: There are numerous other utilities specified in POSIX
> > which we do not have in @system (or the stage3 tarball).
> >
> Agreed.  The argument "its posix and should be in there" doesn't fit the
> criterion for a stage3 tarball.  A stage3 should be "a minimal set from
> which any gentoo system can be built" (modulo arch, abi, libc, ..., of
> course.)  Emerging any linux kernel package will pull in bc (see
> REDEPEND in kernel-2.eclass) and therefore bc is not needed to complete
> that minimal set.
>

(picking up the most relevant reply)

Here[1] is the original discussion regarding the removal of bc and ed from
the system set. I do prefer bc in system set too because I'm lazy to emerge the damn
thing but their reasons were valid at that time(2005), and they 're still valid right now(2014).

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27216

-- 
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
    ( Gentoo Lisp Project )