| 1 |
Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 2 |
> Joshua Baergen <joshuabaergen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I'm all for less cruft and more simplicity. As far as I know none of |
| 5 |
>> the Portage tools depend on Perl, so I don't really find a 'nuclear |
| 6 |
>> fallout has caused dynamic linking to be erratic' situation to be that |
| 7 |
>> important. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Portage is not the only important system tool. Some of us actually use |
| 11 |
> Perl. Please do not be with the breaking. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
My point is that this isn't like the libstdc++ situation. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Many people have things dependent on Perl, but my impression is not that |
| 17 |
things would break, but rather that Perl would adhere to the rules of |
| 18 |
any other dynamically linked library, including breakage from certain |
| 19 |
upgrades. |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives