| 1 |
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:48 am, Frank Schafer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple |
| 5 |
> > > of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > not quite sure what you mean by 'faulty', autoconf/automake is used |
| 8 |
> > heavily throughout portage |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > I'd suggest to remove the build of autoconf/automake from ``emerge |
| 11 |
> > > system''. I'd leave all of the autoconf/automake versions in portage |
| 12 |
> > > tough for the case someone wants to involve in development of some |
| 13 |
> > > package. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > it wouldnt matter, coreutils for example would still need it which means |
| 16 |
> > it would show up in `emerge system` |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on |
| 19 |
> it ;) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
last i checked, Gentoo != LFS, so i dont really see what your point is |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
we patch source files heavily and regenerate the configure/Makefile.in files |
| 24 |
in coreutils |
| 25 |
-mike |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives