[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev]  Re: Lastriting dev-libs/libffi (replaced by USE
From:       Albert Zeyer <albert.zeyer () rwth-aachen ! de>
Date:       2008-06-21 9:01:14
Message-ID: 1214038874.25133.4.camel () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 09:35 +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> > On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun     , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (05 Jun 2008)
> >> # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners.
> >> # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724.
> >> dev-libs/libffi
> >> dev-lang/squeak
> >> x11-libs/gtk-server
> > 
> > The latest version of g-wrap (1.9.11) requires the external libffi
> > released a month or two ago, because it looks for the pkgconfig file
> > installed by that and not gcc:
> > 
> >     - libffi is no longer distributed with g-wrap, as it is available
> >       as a stand-alone package now (instead of being burried in the
> >       GCC sources).
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I'd vote for an external libffi as well since python currently has to use
> it's bundled version of it (statically linking against it).
> Using libffi provided by gcc (and linking dynamically) is no option yet
> since portage doesn't protect the user from destroying his system by
> re-emerging gcc without gcj or libffi USE flags (rev-dep check and
> USE-based deps would be needed).

Isn't it always preferable to separate packages and break them down into
peaces (in this case have an external libffi) instead of having big
packages with lots of stuff (in this case GCC) ?

Perhaps it's more work to maintain, but I as a user would prefer an
external libffi.


-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]