On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:41 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 02-10-2007 11:09:21 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > It also means that their code stands a better chance of working where > > bash is not available, but /bin/sh is a POSIX shell still. > > I prefer to define that ebuilds (and eclasses) are dealt by GNU bash, > which is installed as part of the installation ritual for a Gentoo/X > system. I also prefer to define that all common tools ebuilds and > eclasses use such as cp, rm, awk, sed, find, xargs are GNU variants, > installed as part of the same installation ritual for a Gentoo/X system. > With such "definition", a Gentoo/X system without bash cannot exist. > > What you use outside of the Gentoo build/package manager environment is > completely up to you.
In other words, regardless of shell being used, you have to know that in an ebuild sed, awk, rm, cp, find et all are really GNU sed. Lets not beat around the bush here! Why not just use gsed in an ebuild and be clear about it? > > > Rationale: > All tools (bash, coreutils, findutils, sed, gawk) can be compiled and > installed on any system I know of. Their use is widespread and > accepted. Our primary group of people working on ebuilds and eclasses > (Gentoo developers) work on a Gentoo system having said tools (and only > those) installed, making it a logical choice. > > > I personally fail to see the advantage of using "portable" or "standards > compliant" code here over what we have currently. We don't force it > down on anyone, we only use it to install a package for you. Using that rationale, scrap the kernel and system libs too and just install GNU/Linux with GNU/glibc Infact, if we're not interested in portable code why bother with Gentoo/ALT in the first place? Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
