| 1 |
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 09:35 +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun , Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> # Samuli Suominen <drac@g.o> (05 Jun 2008) |
| 6 |
> >> # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners. |
| 7 |
> >> # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724. |
| 8 |
> >> dev-libs/libffi |
| 9 |
> >> dev-lang/squeak |
| 10 |
> >> x11-libs/gtk-server |
| 11 |
> > |
| 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 |
> |
| 22 |
> I'd vote for an external libffi as well since python currently has to use |
| 23 |
> it's bundled version of it (statically linking against it). |
| 24 |
> Using libffi provided by gcc (and linking dynamically) is no option yet |
| 25 |
> since portage doesn't protect the user from destroying his system by |
| 26 |
> re-emerging gcc without gcj or libffi USE flags (rev-dep check and |
| 27 |
> USE-based deps would be needed). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Isn't it always preferable to separate packages and break them down into |
| 30 |
peaces (in this case have an external libffi) instead of having big |
| 31 |
packages with lots of stuff (in this case GCC) ? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Perhaps it's more work to maintain, but I as a user would prefer an |
| 34 |
external libffi. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives