| 1 |
Albert Zeyer kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 09:35 +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun , Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> # Samuli Suominen <drac@g.o> (05 Jun 2008) |
| 7 |
>>>> # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners. |
| 8 |
>>>> # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724. |
| 9 |
>>>> dev-libs/libffi |
| 10 |
>>>> dev-lang/squeak |
| 11 |
>>>> x11-libs/gtk-server |
| 12 |
>>> The latest version of g-wrap (1.9.11) requires the external libffi |
| 13 |
>>> released a month or two ago, because it looks for the pkgconfig file |
| 14 |
>>> installed by that and not gcc: |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> - libffi is no longer distributed with g-wrap, as it is available |
| 17 |
>>> as a stand-alone package now (instead of being burried in the |
| 18 |
>>> GCC sources). |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> Thoughts? |
| 21 |
>> I'd vote for an external libffi as well since python currently has to use |
| 22 |
>> it's bundled version of it (statically linking against it). |
| 23 |
>> Using libffi provided by gcc (and linking dynamically) is no option yet |
| 24 |
>> since portage doesn't protect the user from destroying his system by |
| 25 |
>> re-emerging gcc without gcj or libffi USE flags (rev-dep check and |
| 26 |
>> USE-based deps would be needed). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Isn't it always preferable to separate packages and break them down into |
| 29 |
> peaces (in this case have an external libffi) instead of having big |
| 30 |
> packages with lots of stuff (in this case GCC) ? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The proper solution is use deps. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Petteri |
Archives