| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07-10-2007 10:19:43 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So there are a couple of options, as I see it: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> 1) Limit tool options to those that are common to all tool variants |
| 6 |
>> 2) Port a standard (i.e. GNU) set of tools to all platforms |
| 7 |
>> 3) Force all gentoo ports to use GNU userland |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I think we'd all agree that #3 is too restrictive. For example, g/fbsd |
| 10 |
>> uses BSD's userland (like vanilla FreeBSD does), and making it GNU would |
| 11 |
>> be a pretty major change. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No, it is not. The problem IMHO is in the "user" userland and the |
| 14 |
> "portage" userland are being seen as one. I think it would be very easy |
| 15 |
> to install all GNU equivalents of tools on BSD in some separate dir, put |
| 16 |
> it in portage's DEFAULT_PATH before /bin and /usr/bin and all would work |
| 17 |
> perfectly well from the ebuild/eclass perspective. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yep, that's option #2, and I think that could work - a subset of |
| 20 |
commands in their GNU variants used by portage. It means formalizing |
| 21 |
the official set of tools allowed for use in ebuilds (I'm not sure if |
| 22 |
the dev guide really codifies this or not, even though it gives a list |
| 23 |
of such tools). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
What I meant above is that #3, which would be changing all of userland |
| 26 |
itself to GNU, would be major and undesirable. Having the option of a |
| 27 |
complete GNU userland would be an interesting option/project, but it's a |
| 28 |
good thing to have the flexibility to have any userland desired, as long |
| 29 |
as portage has a way of being consistent (i.e. via something like #2). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-Joe |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives