| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Friday 05 December 2003 09:58 am, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 5 |
> On the other hand I understand the desire to stay clear off the C/C++ use |
| 6 |
> and completely support it. |
| 7 |
Personally, I see C/C++ as an option that really should be considered not for |
| 8 |
being widely known, easy or readable, but because it would allow Portage to |
| 9 |
depend on *only* glibc, which could mean that there would only be 2 critical |
| 10 |
packages that could break it and even then, staticly linking Portage could |
| 11 |
remove the glibc dependency (I think). |
| 12 |
Might it be a good idea to maintain a minimal Portage in C for recovery |
| 13 |
purposes even if portage-ng decides to go with another language? |
| 14 |
- -- |
| 15 |
Luke-Jr |
| 16 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 17 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 18 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 19 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
iD8DBQE/0KiwZl/BHdU+lYMRAlf3AJ9xRwqgjEg6pxanwVqLa/sdMMvWsACgjd4D |
| 22 |
6uqESnoda5xazl2fNY3gvog= |
| 23 |
=Tk4Q |
| 24 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives