1 |
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 10:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 09:54, Grobian wrote: |
3 |
> > It appears that some people |
4 |
> > don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current |
5 |
> > portage tree. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I'm not going to ask for dropping the assumption, I'm just asking for |
8 |
> making sure that the assumption is actually backed up with actual presence. |
9 |
> The sed/gsed naming shouldn't be too hard to achieve and it's already |
10 |
> common in non-GNU userlands. As we seen for gmake/gawk, it's also a common |
11 |
> way to make sure for some scripts to use a GNU tool. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > Solution to this is making the GNU tool the default for portage known |
14 |
> > under its non-g-prefixed name, such that the assumptions made in the |
15 |
> > tree hold. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> This requires (ab)using /usr/lib/portage/bin .. last time you were against |
18 |
> that, weren't you? |
19 |
|
20 |
What about a separate directory which is arch specific. Or have it installed |
21 |
by an arch package, not by portage itself. Obviously a sed wrapper is not |
22 |
needed for gnu systems, but is for bsd based ones. etc. |
23 |
|
24 |
Paul |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Paul de Vrieze |
28 |
Gentoo Developer |
29 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
30 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |