| 1 |
On 12/23/16 1:11 PM, Felix Janda wrote: |
| 2 |
> Aric Belsito wrote: |
| 3 |
>> This is mostly a question for Blueness, but in the Gentoo repository, we |
| 4 |
>> currently have sys-libs/fts-standalone -- but I cannot link elfutils |
| 5 |
>> against it (build-time issues). |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> On the other hand, there is the musl-fts library |
| 8 |
>> (https://github.com/pullmoll/musl-fts) which does work (and I currently |
| 9 |
>> have in the musl-extras repository) but as Blueness put the |
| 10 |
>> fts-standalone package into the gentoo repository, is the maintainer, |
| 11 |
>> and wrote it, it seemed like a bad idea to use musl-fts instead. I'd |
| 12 |
>> like some advice. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> The main reason I ask is because in updating sys-fs/f2fs-tools, it gains |
| 15 |
>> the sys-libs/libselinux dependency, which won't build on musl without |
| 16 |
>> fts. IcedTea, Chromium, and SystemTap also require elfutils. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> A while ago, I've reported to blueness the duplication between |
| 19 |
> musl-fts and fts-standalone: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> https://github.com/blueness/fts-standalone/issues/1 |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Thanks for bringing this up again (and your working ebuild for it). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I also wanted to note that there is now a bug for elfutils with musl: |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602126 |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Felix |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I don't have any strong feeling about musl-fts vs fts-standalone. What |
| 34 |
are your preferences and why? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 39 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 40 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 41 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 42 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives