Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:19, Grobian wrote:
I agree with you, but I don't follow your reasoning. Portage IMHO
expects it's own (GNU) find and xargs. Or well, not Portage, but devs
that just create ebuilds on Gentoo Linux and don't mind about your bugs
for sticking to a common subset of supported flags.
No, people got already stabbed for using GNU find options in ebuilds, as they
are not portable and IIRC this was already clear a lot of time ago.
And for the rest, give me the ones who don't care about my bugs, and I'll see
with their herd/project/whatever will be.
Well, I guess that was a misconception of mine then, and it's obvious
how things stick together here. There is no reason whatsoever to use
(GNU) find and xargs on OSX (as with any OS that has find or xargs that
supports the subset of commands you defined to be sufficient).
I think we can make it an official statement, that as soon as a certain
application doesn't meet this requirement of the defined minimal
functionality (like OSX's sed?) that it should be replaced with another
one, usually done through portage as it is the simplest.
TODO: define the minimal requirements.
Which is nice. Why don't we (OSX) use this ebuild? (If it indeed does
what I think it does.)
Because it's not in main tree? Remember when I said you should start looking
at the gentoo-alt overlay?
Right... hit me. I got it checked out... maybe I don't get checkin
messages from it?
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
[email protected] mailing list
