| 1 |
On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:22:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system |
| 4 |
> > has changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a |
| 5 |
> > need for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of |
| 6 |
> > portage. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it |
| 9 |
> SHOULD BE. The only sane way to do this is: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> if (pkgmgr=portage) |
| 12 |
> python in @system |
| 13 |
> else |
| 14 |
> python !in system |
| 15 |
> end |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That's not particularly sane, because it addresses only one special case, |
| 18 |
others may arise. IMO the sane approach, as I said some posts |
| 19 |
ago, is for buildsyspkg to build packages for everything in @system and |
| 20 |
their dependencies. If you can't do "emerge -eK @system", buildsyspkg |
| 21 |
has failed to do anything useful. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
"MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years |
| 28 |
of careful development." |
Archives