On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri Nov 20 12:04:48 -0500 2009: > >> maybe because that's a LOT of packages, and may be not everyone WANTS >> to have all those packages automagically pulled in? > > I agree with this, in principle. In practice though, the decision to > not depends on everything pointed is suboptimal. Personally, I'm > leaning toward the 'provide your own gnulinks' approach. > > If coreutils can be built (and pass tests), I'll be add links > appropriately in that package...to get the ball rolling. >
coreutils is kinda a sore spot. It should be an easy build, in and of itself. However, no-one so far who has mentioned it, has been willing to do the work to "nicely" transition us to it. The issue is that coreutils is a conglomerate of previously separate utils. So if you're going to replace them, you need to handle the dependancies from packages that depend on those. (Another issue, is that coreutils is a lot bigger, and it's kinda annoying to download the whole bloatware lot, if you only want one of the original pieces of it. But that's just a side issue thats kinda optional; the main issue is handling the transition smoothly) _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
