1 |
On 25-01-2006 09:19:44 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 06:47, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > Diego was mistaken here ... probably my fault because i lied to him at some |
4 |
> > point on irc, who knows for sure ... at any rate, the sed ebuild does not |
5 |
> > install 'gsed' on GNU systems |
6 |
> I was pretty sure we decided to go with g-prefixed for tar, sed and make for |
7 |
> GNU systems, too (and it's what it's being done by gawk, gmake and so on). |
8 |
> I actually have gsed locally, but it might be some trace from the old g/fbsd |
9 |
> overlay at this point... |
10 |
> |
11 |
> So this makes the things more complex again. Time to rethink all of |
12 |
> that, what you think? |
13 |
|
14 |
I think that the g-prefixed installs are a big pain, unless you can |
15 |
interface to them, like epatch does. However, you can't because the |
16 |
exec call of a process doesn't use a shell. It appears that some people |
17 |
don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current |
18 |
portage tree. |
19 |
Solution to this is making the GNU tool the default for portage known |
20 |
under its non-g-prefixed name, such that the assumptions made in the |
21 |
tree hold. |
22 |
|
23 |
Maybe it's just the path of least resistance... The profit of having a |
24 |
tree that works with any implementation of awk, sed, find, xargs, etc. |
25 |
is perhaps too small for the actual work and sacrifices needed for it. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Fabian Groffen |
30 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project |
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |