On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 23:18 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 16:21 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > we want the installed environment to be portable, not the build
> > environment.
> > i do not see any benefit from forcing the build environment to be pure
> > POSIX
> > complia
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:03 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:40:20 +
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which
> > > package manager is bein
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:40:20 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which
> > package manager is being used. If you want to change that you'll
> > have to rewrite the en
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which
> package manager is being used. If you want to change that you'll have to
> rewrite the entire tree.
Az once said near enough the same thing about baselayout. And that's
y
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:18:43 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> paludis requires tr1-whatever libs
4.1 ships those, so you don't need to do anything there.
> Maybe one day Gentoo will have a PM that doesn't require any of that
> and is just written in C and sh, using POSIX libc where
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 16:21 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we want the installed environment to be portable, not the build environment.
> i do not see any benefit from forcing the build environment to be pure POSIX
> compliant and i see many many detrimental problems.
Oh I don't know. Imagine h
On Monday 05 November 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 14:21 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > > Actually you missed the mark completely.
> > > Nothing in the tree itself specifies what shell to use - instead it's
> > > the package manager. So the PM on Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD *c
On 05-11-2007 20:32:09 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > > More (generic) unix-able.
> > >
> > > Exactly so :)
> >
> > Not really as long as not being bourne shell compatible like autoconf's
> > configure. I won't trust to have a POSIX shell like /bin/ksh everywhere,
> > but /bin/sh only, which usu
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 14:21 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > Actually you missed the mark completely.
> > Nothing in the tree itself specifies what shell to use - instead it's
> > the package manager. So the PM on Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD *could*
> > be /bin/sh and on the systems where /bin/sh
On Monday 05 November 2007, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:13 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > While I still have access to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email, I'll respond here.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:13 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> While I still have access to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email, I'll respond here.
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> >
> > As it seems too few people
While I still have access to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email, I'll respond here.
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47 +, Roy Marples wrote:
>
> As it seems too few people really accept your suggestion, I feel it's
> time for me to chime in
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47 +, Roy Marples wrote:
As it seems too few people really accept your suggestion, I feel it's
time for me to chime in too, although I don't know what exactly POSIX-sh
standard defines.
> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 02-11-2007 17:35
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > I don't see them as inferior.
> > I see them as more portable and less confusing.
>
> Please stop calling it "more portable". The shell code you see in
> configure can in a way be calle
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Please stop calling it "more portable". The shell code you see in
> configure can in a way be called "portable". Your POSIX compliant stuff
> isn't. In fact, by stating #!/bin/sh you actually make the code useless
> on a number of platfo
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > I don't see them as inferior.
> > I see them as more portable and less confusing.
>
> Please stop calling it "more portable". The shell code you see in
> configure can in a way be call
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > I don't see them as inferior.
> > I see them as more portable and less confusing.
>
> Please stop calling it "more portable".
But is it more portable as then then works across more tha
On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> I don't see them as inferior.
> I see them as more portable and less confusing.
Please stop calling it "more portable". The shell code you see in
configure can in a way be called "portable". Your POSIX compliant stuff
isn't. In fact, by stating
18 matches
Mail list logo
