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 GNU systems > I was pretty sure we decided to go with g-prefixed for tar, sed and make for > GNU systems, too (and it's what it's being done by gawk, gmake and so on). > I actually have gsed locally, but it might be some trace from the old g/fbsd > overlay at this point... > > So this makes the things more complex again. Time to rethink all of > that, what you think?
I think that the g-prefixed installs are a big pain, unless you can interface to them, like epatch does. However, you can't because the exec call of a process doesn't use a shell. It appears that some people don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current portage tree. Solution to this is making the GNU tool the default for portage known under its non-g-prefixed name, such that the assumptions made in the tree hold. Maybe it's just the path of least resistance... The profit of having a tree that works with any implementation of awk, sed, find, xargs, etc. is perhaps too small for the actual work and sacrifices needed for it. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
