Natanael Copa wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 06:52 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: >> On 10/8/07, Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 21:26 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: >> > > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > > > Fabian has summed it up nicely, thanks. i could care less what >> > > > your userland is outside of the ebuild environment since it doesnt >> > > > matter to ebuild >> > > > writers. you want a deficient runtime environment, more power to >> > > > you, but >> > > > forcing that environment onto ebuild developers is not acceptable. >> > > > off the top of my head, i'd like to see GNU find/xargs added to the >> > > > ebuild environment. >> > > >> > > Mike, exactly as I said. That's option #2, and I think it could be a >> > > great solution. As for deficient, well, that's in the eye of the >> > > beholder. ;) >> > > ++ on the general idea: GNU sed, grep, awk, ed and find get my vote (as well as BASH ofc.) (I don't /think/ you need xargs anymore with find .. -exec.)
>> > >> > Question, if you go for #2. Does that mean you will need all the >> > required GNU userland to do binary only installs? >> > >> > It would be highly desireable to be able to do binary installs (write >> > your own binary only package manager) without depending on all the GNU >> > stuff needed to compile the packages. >> Well all you're talking about is BASH and a few others on the machine that builds the binaries afaict. I don't see that as a major imposition. You can then package for downstream using whatever you like. If you're that motivated why not just start hacking on binary support in portage/pkgcore/paludis? There's always open bugs. >> Your own binary only package manager would still need to provide >> Option #2; ie you need to have GNU tools installed to process the >> binary packages. pkg_* functions could still have GNU stuff in them >> and those still get run during a binary package install. > > If we would like to be able to do binary installs without the GNU tools, > what alternatives do we have? > <snip stuff that all takes a lot of effort for zero end-user gain> > Any other alternatives? > > Comments? > I'd just specify BASH (as I don't see the point in making the distinction as it only applies to build machines) and coreutils/findutils etc. Asking everyone to switch coding style for certain functions, just to support the stuff that Gentoo was designed to do from the beginning, seems counter-productive. For every market except embedded, which we've discussed already, BASH is not a major issue: nor are the other tools mentioned. > > Alternative C is what I do today. > Sounds rough :) (I really would recommend #pkgcore as well as there is several years of work to do with binpkgs in that.) Standardising on a certain subset of base GNU tools seems like a good idea to me too. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
