On Wednesday 25 January 2006 10:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 09:54, Grobian wrote: > > It appears that some people > > don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current > > portage tree. > > I'm not going to ask for dropping the assumption, I'm just asking for > making sure that the assumption is actually backed up with actual presence. > The sed/gsed naming shouldn't be too hard to achieve and it's already > common in non-GNU userlands. As we seen for gmake/gawk, it's also a common > way to make sure for some scripts to use a GNU tool. > > > Solution to this is making the GNU tool the default for portage known > > under its non-g-prefixed name, such that the assumptions made in the > > tree hold. > > This requires (ab)using /usr/lib/portage/bin .. last time you were against > that, weren't you?
What about a separate directory which is arch specific. Or have it installed by an arch package, not by portage itself. Obviously a sed wrapper is not needed for gnu systems, but is for bsd based ones. etc. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpnmMOr2AWGc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
