"C. Bergström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
