| 1 |
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 23:40, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
| 2 |
> You cut out my next line saying "Does portage use ${KV} internally?" |
| 3 |
> which was also part of the point ;) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I cut it out because I don't know the answer. Either way I just did a quick |
| 6 |
grep and don't see portage using it internally at all. If this is the case |
| 7 |
(hoping a portage developer will confirm), how does this affect your view? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Anyways, what I was trying to say was - if 729 ebuilds currently rely on |
| 10 |
> knowing the version of the installed Linux kernel source I think this |
| 11 |
> information should be available through portage itself, and not an |
| 12 |
> eclass. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
729 ebuilds is only a small fraction of our tree. A quick comparison to |
| 15 |
eutils, which appears to be inherited in over 5000 ebuilds. |
| 16 |
More stats: those 729 ebuilds fall in 110 packages, which makes up about 1.4% |
| 17 |
of the number of packages of our tree. It would be a lot of work, but |
| 18 |
wouldn't have to be done all at once (plus some of these already inherit |
| 19 |
kernel-mod). Thoughts? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Daniel |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives