-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 05 December 2003 09:58 am, George Shapovalov wrote: > On the other hand I understand the desire to stay clear off the C/C++ use > and completely support it. Personally, I see C/C++ as an option that really should be considered not for being widely known, easy or readable, but because it would allow Portage to depend on *only* glibc, which could mean that there would only be 2 critical packages that could break it and even then, staticly linking Portage could remove the glibc dependency (I think). Might it be a good idea to maintain a minimal Portage in C for recovery purposes even if portage-ng decides to go with another language? - -- Luke-Jr Developer, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/0KiwZl/BHdU+lYMRAlf3AJ9xRwqgjEg6pxanwVqLa/sdMMvWsACgjd4D 6uqESnoda5xazl2fNY3gvog= =Tk4Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
