Hello, Over the course of this year, a lzma-utils buildtime dependency has been added to a few system packages, to handle .tar.lzma tarballs. This has huge implications on the requirement of the system toolchain, which is highly disturbing from a minimal (lets say embedded) systems concern - lzma-utils depends on the C++ compiler and the libstdc++ beast, while a minimal system would like to avoid this at all cost.
I do realize one would remove build-time dependencies and the toolchain on an embedded system on deployment anyway, but this means gcc USE=nocxx USE flag is pretty much useless, while it would be nice to use it to ensure that nothing sneaks in during development that depends on the C++ standard library easily instead of finding things break later. This is a plea and also a request for comments on the matter of using .tar.lzma tarballs or not, and for what packages this is acceptable and for what not. I'd be happy if some other unpacker is used than lzma-utils - one that does not depend on libstdc++ - I'm sure it can be done, heck it's done in integrated form in some other projects in less than a couple kilobytes of code for the unpacking from a VFS. Meanwhile please consider using the upstream provided .tar.gz tarballs instead and not roll patchsets in .lzma just cause you can. coreutils and linux-headers come to my mind out of system packages right now. I'm sure more dragons await me. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
