| 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 |
Archives