1 |
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014, Luca Barbato wrote: |
2 |
> On 17/09/14 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> >> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build |
6 |
> >> linux among the other stuff. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Luca, |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any |
11 |
> > other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package that |
12 |
> > takes ~20 seconds to build? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant and it is a pain to |
15 |
> remember that Gentoo doesn't have it by default (since the errors can be |
16 |
> quite vague). |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
I agree; ed should be supplied too for the same reason (and not be |
20 |
considered as a provider for the virtual.) It's a pita not being able to |
21 |
rely on a POSIX.2 base. |
22 |
|
23 |
Similarly with vi/ex too (again, not providing the virtual); though vim |
24 |
should likely be another package, unless it's much easier just to bundle |
25 |
it. AFAIR you get into all the gvim/X questions then, but I can't say as |
26 |
I use it, so defer to whomever. ex is useful for scripters, though we |
27 |
use ed more, since it avoids the vi question and we've had reports of |
28 |
ex not being as reliable as ed, on other platforms. |
29 |
|
30 |
busybox ed should never be built afaic. GNU ed has tight linkage for |
31 |
rootfs usage (like sed and awk, which should be in /bin), and actually |
32 |
works: |
33 |
$ ldd $(type -p ed) |
34 |
linux-vdso.so.1 |
35 |
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 |
36 |
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 |
37 |
|
38 |
Regards, |
39 |
steveL |
40 |
-- |
41 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |