Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
"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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
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. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you use Solaris in production and I'm just trying to make the situation easier. If someone will review the patch I'll make it up, but don't want to waste more of anyone's time on this. Thanks
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
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. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
Fabian Groffen wrote: On 17-09-2008 10:21:17 +0200, Santiago M. Mola wrote: Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? See the FreeBSD profile for an example. I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in work so modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. You'd still need to create an OpenSolaris profile. While you're at it, you can create a profile.bashrc with the required modifications. I don't see any reason to not do the gpatch change, but it looks like unecessary to me because you already have simpler ways to solve the problem. So, requiring others to do a significant useless amount of work when you can solve it with just a line is not fair. >From some experience, I can tell that an alias is not sufficient to cover all cases, and will result in random failures because you only notice too late patch is used and not gpatch. 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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
Santiago M. Mola wrote: On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM, "C. Bergström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, C. Bergström wrote: Here's another idea and I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner.. Instead of any system change to the patch ebuild.. Inside the eutils.eclass do a quick check for gpatch and if it exists use that vs patch. Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? See the FreeBSD profile for an example. I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in work so modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. You'd still need to create an OpenSolaris profile. While you're at it, you can create a profile.bashrc with the required modifications. I don't see any reason to not do the gpatch change, but it looks like unecessary to me because you already have simpler ways to solve the problem. So, requiring others to do a significant useless amount of work when you can solve it with just a line is not fair. If I don't have to introduce a new bash dependency I'd like to avoid it. I'll do the work. The patch is a couple lines and I don't think it would be significant or impact maintenance of the eclass.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
Fabian Groffen wrote: On 17-09-2008 09:59:42 +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote: Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? See the FreeBSD profile for an example. I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in work so modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. Hopefully, base-system maintainers don't mind my request, but I can understand it's beyond the Linux use case. As I understood it, you want to package (Prefix) Portage for (Open)Solaris, but without USERLAND=GNU like Gentoo Prefix does. You want all eclasses, ebuilds and portage itself to work with the Solaris userland tools. Not exactly.. 1) yes I'm patching (prefix) portage for OpenSolaris.. I say OpenSolaris because while I'm doing best effort to make it as portable as possible, but can't test and don't much care about prior versions w/o source. 2) OpenSolaris comes with most GNU tools by default (except sed/find) , but appends a g to the front File: `/usr/gnu/bin/sed' -> `../../bin/gsed' I'd happily not bring this issue and bother anyone, but on every sync that eclass is going to get overwritten and the change is pretty minimal. In regards to the ebuilds I will manage an overlay containing mostly repackaged sources from upstream. The end goal being able to repackage the entire OpenSolaris distribution built with portage from source. Thanks for the minute ./Chrisotpher
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
On 17-09-2008 10:21:17 +0200, Santiago M. Mola wrote: > >> Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? > >> See the FreeBSD profile for an example. > >> > > > > I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in work so > > modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. > > You'd still need to create an OpenSolaris profile. While you're at it, > you can create a profile.bashrc with the required modifications. > > I don't see any reason to not do the gpatch change, but it looks like > unecessary to me because you already have simpler ways to solve the > problem. So, requiring others to do a significant useless amount of > work when you can solve it with just a line is not fair. >From some experience, I can tell that an alias is not sufficient to cover all cases, and will result in random failures because you only notice too late patch is used and not gpatch. 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. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM, "C. Bergström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, C. Bergström wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> Here's another idea and I don't know why I didn't think of it >>> sooner.. Instead of any system change to the patch ebuild.. Inside >>> the eutils.eclass do a quick check for gpatch and if it exists use >>> that vs patch. >>> >> >> Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? >> See the FreeBSD profile for an example. >> > > I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in work so > modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. You'd still need to create an OpenSolaris profile. While you're at it, you can create a profile.bashrc with the required modifications. I don't see any reason to not do the gpatch change, but it looks like unecessary to me because you already have simpler ways to solve the problem. So, requiring others to do a significant useless amount of work when you can solve it with just a line is not fair. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
On 17-09-2008 09:59:42 +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote: >> Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? >> See the FreeBSD profile for an example. >> > I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in > work so modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. > Hopefully, base-system maintainers don't mind my request, but I can > understand it's beyond the Linux use case. As I understood it, you want to package (Prefix) Portage for (Open)Solaris, but without USERLAND=GNU like Gentoo Prefix does. You want all eclasses, ebuilds and portage itself to work with the Solaris userland tools. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, C. Bergström wrote: Here's another idea and I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner.. Instead of any system change to the patch ebuild.. Inside the eutils.eclass do a quick check for gpatch and if it exists use that vs patch. Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? See the FreeBSD profile for an example. I'd like to package portage for OpenSolaris and have it just drop-in work so modifications like what you suggest wouldn't be required. Hopefully, base-system maintainers don't mind my request, but I can understand it's beyond the Linux use case.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, C. Bergström wrote: > Here's another idea and I don't know why I didn't think of it > sooner.. Instead of any system change to the patch ebuild.. Inside > the eutils.eclass do a quick check for gpatch and if it exists use > that vs patch. Why not simply alias patch=gpatch in profile.bashrc? See the FreeBSD profile for an example. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
Duncan wrote: "C. Bergström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:30:51 +0200: 1) Add a symlink in GNU patch ebuild to symlink patch to gpatch You mean the other way, right? gpatch -> patch , since we already have patch, and need gpatch if the below is to work. Or did you mean change the sys-devel/patch ebuild so the executable is named gpatch instead of patch, then create a symlink patch -> gpatch as suggested above. 2) Change references to patch in eclass/eutils.eclass to gpatch This makes sense to me. Here's another idea and I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner.. Instead of any system change to the patch ebuild.. Inside the eutils.eclass do a quick check for gpatch and if it exists use that vs patch. I'm trying to think of any circumstances where this would fail..
[gentoo-dev] Re: Request for feedback on GNU Patch change
"C. Bergström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:30:51 +0200: > 1) Add a symlink in GNU patch ebuild to symlink patch to gpatch You mean the other way, right? gpatch -> patch , since we already have patch, and need gpatch if the below is to work. Or did you mean change the sys-devel/patch ebuild so the executable is named gpatch instead of patch, then create a symlink patch -> gpatch as suggested above. > 2) Change references to patch in eclass/eutils.eclass to gpatch This makes sense to me. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
