| 1 |
On Sunday 31 March 2013 05:19:58 Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:59:52 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> > it'd be simpler if we just dropped [texinfo] altogether from @system. |
| 4 |
> > if people want `info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages |
| 5 |
> > want `makeinfo`, they can DEPEND on it -- few fall into this category |
| 6 |
> > (<100 by a rough survey of random Gentoo installs). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Except... at least for those running build-systems, some of those <100 |
| 9 |
> pkgs with hard deps on texinfo include automake, autoconf, gcc, and |
| 10 |
> e2fsprogs, all of which are pretty core to a gentoo system, at least one |
| 11 |
> that builds anything. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
any core package that includes info pages should not be regenerating them |
| 14 |
hence should not need texinfo. i've applied a fix already for gcc to do just |
| 15 |
that. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
we've already dropped autoconf/automake from @system since the autotools |
| 18 |
eclass handles that for us. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
other packages might need more work along the same way. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Texinfo may be more practical to remove on binpkg-only systems, tho, |
| 23 |
> which might be what you had in mind, but if there was hint of that I |
| 24 |
> didn't catch it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
binpkg or custom ROOTs. both are important to me. |
| 27 |
-mike |
Archives