On Sunday 31 March 2013 05:19:58 Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:59:52 -0400 as excerpted: > > it'd be simpler if we just dropped [texinfo] altogether from @system. > > if people want `info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages > > want `makeinfo`, they can DEPEND on it -- few fall into this category > > (<100 by a rough survey of random Gentoo installs). > > Except... at least for those running build-systems, some of those <100 > pkgs with hard deps on texinfo include automake, autoconf, gcc, and > e2fsprogs, all of which are pretty core to a gentoo system, at least one > that builds anything.
any core package that includes info pages should not be regenerating them hence should not need texinfo. i've applied a fix already for gcc to do just that. we've already dropped autoconf/automake from @system since the autotools eclass handles that for us. other packages might need more work along the same way. > Texinfo may be more practical to remove on binpkg-only systems, tho, > which might be what you had in mind, but if there was hint of that I > didn't catch it. binpkg or custom ROOTs. both are important to me. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
