1 |
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> From that angle, if you wouldd remove the system set, would you add its |
4 |
> contents to the Portage ebuild? Portage itself doesn't need a compiler |
5 |
> or might not need gawk, but whatever it runs (ebuilds) often need so. |
6 |
|
7 |
Nope - I'd add them to every ebuild, and only where needed. That's |
8 |
the whole point. |
9 |
|
10 |
> |
11 |
> Adding libc, a compiler, linker, shell, etc. to almost any every ebuild |
12 |
> looks pretty much useless to me. Adding deps for all regular tools an |
13 |
> ebuild uses (bash, sed, awk, cut, wc, ...) seems like error-prone and |
14 |
> pretty much useless to me as well. So, there is the system set which |
15 |
> just is the central place where those packages are recorded. |
16 |
|
17 |
It is only useful for situations where people want to do something |
18 |
unusual. Some would argue that this is the only situation where |
19 |
Gentoo is useful. If I wanted a system just like everybody else's I |
20 |
guess I'd run Ubuntu, if not Windows or OSX. |
21 |
|
22 |
In any case, I do agree that getting there is associated with pain. I |
23 |
just like to think that getting there "someday" would be nice. I know |
24 |
that a systematic effort exists in mathematics to try to reduce all of |
25 |
math to a minimum set of axioms and have everything else be formally |
26 |
derived. I consider that a thing of beauty, even if I don't care to |
27 |
read the two volumes necessary to get to 1+1=2. |
28 |
|
29 |
Rich |