On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Cedric Staniewski <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do not agree with your definition of "portable" here. All of makepkgs > dependencies are available for (mostly?) every system pacman can run on, > so it is already "portable". Adding fallbacks only may make it easier to > install/run makepkg in a specific setup. > A setup where you cannot install all of makepkg's dependencies with a > reasonable effort seems rather exotic to me and does not justify such an > inappropriate increase in complexity of makepkg in my opinion. > Why do you not write bash wrappers which provide the functionality of > bsdtar/openssl/... and add these to your path? > >
I often agree with Cedric.. this is just another occurence :)
