| 1 |
On Thursday 04 November 2004 17:41, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2004-04-11 at 16:09 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:01:43 +0000 Chris Bainbridge |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > <chris.bainbridge@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > | Isn't this the same problem as gcc, java interpreters, etc all wanting |
| 7 |
> > | to install binaries called 'gcc' and 'java', so we have gcc-config and |
| 8 |
> > | java-config which allows the user to insert the 'gcc' and 'java' |
| 9 |
> > | symbols into their executable namespace? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Pretty much, yeah. On the other hand, having a vi-config would be really |
| 12 |
> > really stupid. I really don't want to go down that road if there's any |
| 13 |
> > way to avoid it... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Can't we just have a generic system like debian's alternatives instead |
| 16 |
> of creating a new -config tool for every package? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Don't we have alternatives.eclass? |
| 19 |
(I don't know the internals, though) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives