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 |