Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:10:17
Message-Id: 4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 by Steven J Long
1 On 04/10/2012 07:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote:
2 > I suppose you could script that, but again, it just seems like a lot of
3 > bother to implement an "alternative" that doesn't actually gain anything
4 > over the traditional setup (plus making sure that partitions are mounted
5 > before udev starts.)
6
7 At least in the case of udev, we gain from not having to maintain a fork.
8
9 > As for the burden of ensuring that binaries installed to /{s,}bin don't link
10 > to libs in /usr, why not just automate a QA check for that, and let
11 > developers decide whether a fix is necessary? After all, core packages that
12 > do that even when configured with prefix and execprefix = /, aren't so
13 > portable, and Gentoo has always championed "doing the right thing" wrt
14 > helping upstream fix portability issues.
15
16 If the relevant ebuild developers really want to support that, it's fine
17 I guess. Hopefully that won't involve using static links as workarounds
18 for cross-/usr dependencies.
19 --
20 Thanks,
21 Zac

Replies