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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
From:       Thilo Bangert <bangert () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2008-09-18 9:07:54
Message-ID: 200809181108.00568.bangert () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


"C. Bergström" <cbergstrom@netsyncro.com> said:
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 17-09-2008 10:41:07 +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> >>> By the way, I'm against this stuff.  I rather see a PATH solution
> >>> involved.  Portage already has a DEFAULT_PATH, and if someone
> >>> refuses to install patch, one could always use a special directory
> >>> with symlinks to the g-versions, e.g. patch -> /usr/sfw/bin/gpatch
> >>> such that Portage/eclass/ebuilds don't have to bother about this at
> >>> all.
> >>
> >> patch is installed and I would agree with you, but in certain
> >> circumstances using the GNU tools are broken.
> >
> > Then if that is the case, Portage/eclass/ebuild relies on that
> > brokenness.  I'm not saying you should have the same PATH as Portage.
>
> GNU tools always behaved as expected on Linux.  The brokeness is
> platform specific in my case.  

please, also make sure this gets fixed. 
thanks for your work

kind regards
Thilo

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

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