On Friday 27 January 2006 14:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> it does ... but in case it cant find a fully qualified strip binary
> (CHOST-strip), it will fall back to plain old `strip`
Which it certainly can. As long as it doesn't look in /usr/lib/portage/bin to
find it. Something like:
STRIP="`wh
On Friday 27 January 2006 03:17, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 19:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > Sometimes when calling the strip option
> > > of install. A strip wrapper prevents this broken behaviour once and for
On Thursday 26 January 2006 19:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > > Another candidate would be the strip binary which m
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
> > > by certain makefiles instead of being portag
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
> > by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled.
>
> packages should never strip, only portage shoul
On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
> by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled.
packages should never strip, only portage should
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 10:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 09:54, Grobian wrote:
> > It appears that some people
> > don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current
> > portage tree.
>
> I'm not going to ask for dropping the assumption,
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 01:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> > answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> > the only sane way
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 00:14 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I think the time is mature to ask for another step of Gentoo/ALT
> improvement ;)
> Currently ebuilds uses a sed syntax that's mostly GNU sed 4 compatible, but
> incompatible with BSD sed for instance. This is usually fine as w
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 03:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If there are any hardcoded calls to /usr/bin/sed, it is reasonable for
> > you to ask for them to be fixed. For any others, use a wrapper script.
>
> I think the wra
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 09:54, Grobian wrote:
> It appears that some people
> don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current
> portage tree.
I'm not going to ask for dropping the assumption, I'm just asking for making
sure that the assumption is actually backed up with
On 25-01-2006 09:19:44 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 06:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Diego was mistaken here ... probably my fault because i lied to him at some
> > point on irc, who knows for sure ... at any rate, the sed ebuild does not
> > install 'gsed'
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> If there are any hardcoded calls to /usr/bin/sed, it is reasonable for
> you to ask for them to be fixed. For any others, use a wrapper script.
I think the wrapper script idea was turned down by someone from portage IIRC.
Anyway it's not
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 06:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Diego was mistaken here ... probably my fault because i lied to him at some
> point on irc, who knows for sure ... at any rate, the sed ebuild does not
> install 'gsed' on GNU systems
I was pretty sure we decided to go with g-prefixed for
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:16, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 25/01/2006-00:14:13(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
>
> > What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> > present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of
> > sed (4.1.4
maillog: 25/01/2006-00:14:13(+0100): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed
> (4.1.4; ppc-macos has no problem as the 4.0.9 version uses gsed anyway).
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:17:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| And as there's no current way to fix the invokation of sed from
| within xargs or find, I'm not going to ask to change _all_ the calls
| of sed, but just the ones done through those two or other scripts and
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> > answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> > the only sane way to
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 19:13, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if you're implying we change all calls from 'sed' to 'gsed' in ebuilds
> > then the answer is no from my pov
>
> Can you at least read all my mails till the end before
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
> answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
> the only sane way to do things, since certain other platforms ship
> retarded versions of sed.
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you're implying we change all calls from 'sed' to 'gsed' in ebuilds then
> the answer is no from my pov
Can you at least read all my mails till the end before replying next time? I
was referring mainly to the ones that calls sed from f
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:14:13 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments about this? (Please don't tell me to do a GLEP about this)
We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It'
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 18:14, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> What I'd like to ask is, if possible, to start using gsed instead, that's
> present on both GNU and other userlands with current stable version of sed
> (4.1.4; ppc-macos has no problem as the 4.0.9 version uses gsed anyway).
if
23 matches
Mail list logo
