On Friday 27 January 2006 14:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> it does ... but in case it cant find a fully qualified strip binary
> (CHOST-strip), it will fall back to plain old `strip`
Which it certainly can. As long as it doesn't look in /usr/lib/portage/bin to
find it. Something like:
STRIP="`wh
On Friday 27 January 2006 03:17, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 19:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > Sometimes when calling the strip option
> > > of install. A strip wrapper prevents this broken behaviour once and for
On Thursday 26 January 2006 19:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > > Another candidate would be the strip binary which m
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
> > > by certain makefiles instead of being portag
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
> > by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled.
>
> packages should never strip, only portage shoul
On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
> by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled.
packages should never strip, only portage should
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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,
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 01:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> > answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> > the only sane way
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 00:14 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I think the time is mature to ask for another step of Gentoo/ALT
> improvement ;)
> Currently ebuilds uses a sed syntax that's mostly GNU sed 4 compatible, but
> incompatible with BSD sed for instance. This is usually fine as w
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 03:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If there are any hardcoded calls to /usr/bin/sed, it is reasonable for
> > you to ask for them to be fixed. For any others, use a wrapper script.
>
> I think the wra
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
On 25-01-2006 09:19:44 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 06:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Diego was mistaken here ... probably my fault because i lied to him at some
> > point on irc, who knows for sure ... at any rate, the sed ebuild does not
> > install 'gsed'
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> If there are any hardcoded calls to /usr/bin/sed, it is reasonable for
> you to ask for them to be fixed. For any others, use a wrapper script.
I think the wrapper script idea was turned down by someone from portage IIRC.
Anyway it's not
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 06:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Diego was mistaken here ... probably my fault because i lied to him at some
> point on irc, who knows for sure ... at any rate, the sed ebuild does not
> install 'gsed' on GNU systems
I was pretty sure we decided to go with g-prefixed for
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:16, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 25/01/2006-00:14:13(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
>
> > What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> > present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of
> > sed (4.1.4
maillog: 25/01/2006-00:14:13(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed
> (4.1.4; ppc-macos has no problem as the 4.0.9 version uses gsed anyway).
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:17:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| And as there's no current way to fix the invokation of sed from
| within xargs or find, I'm not going to ask to change _all_ the calls
| of sed, but just the ones done through those two or other scripts and
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> > answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> > the only sane way to
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:13, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if you're implying we change all calls from 'sed' to 'gsed' in ebuilds
> > then the answer is no from my pov
>
> Can you at least read all my mails till the end before
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> the only sane way to do things, since certain other platforms ship
> retarded versions of sed.
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you're implying we change all calls from 'sed' to 'gsed' in ebuilds then
> the answer is no from my pov
Can you at least read all my mails till the end before replying next time? I
was referring mainly to the ones that calls sed from f
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:14:13 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments about this? (Please don't tell me to do a GLEP about this)
We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It'
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 18:14, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed
> (4.1.4; ppc-macos has no problem as the 4.0.9 version uses gsed anyway).
if
I think the time is mature to ask for another step of Gentoo/ALT
improvement ;)
Currently ebuilds uses a sed syntax that's mostly GNU sed 4 compatible, but
incompatible with BSD sed for instance. This is usually fine as we aliases
sed to gsed in our bashrc so that the problem in sed calls is rem
24 matches
Mail list logo
