[Exherbo-dev] GNU coreutils alternatives

Bernd Steinhauser exherbo at bernd-steinhauser.de
Wed Sep 30 15:12:22 UTC 2015


On 30/09/15 00:04, Kylie McClain wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Bryan Østergaard
> <bryan.ostergaard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm a bit late to the party but here's my thoughts on the situation.
>>
>> First of all, I want good solid reasons why we should do this and everything
>> I've seen so far have been fairly handwavy in my opinion. This is a rather
>> big change with lots of potential for breakage and so we should have very
>> solid reasons for doing it.
> As Bo brought up in #exherbo-dev a while back, those same arguments could have
> been given to things such as multiarch, calling them "handwavy" and all.
> Though I realize this is a good bit different from the effects and possible use
> cases that multiarch could have fulfilled, I don't think that makes the point
> any less valid.
The difference is that multiarch is something that *has to* affect the build 
system whereas this is something that people might want to use for their runtime 
environment but not necessarily for the build system.

This is the reason why I am still not fully convinced that this is a good thing. 
Imo the build system should be very much fixed, maybe apart from a few 
exceptions. I.e. llvm/clang might make sense.
If you want to build an embedded system or something like that you don't really 
need the runtime environment to match the buildtime environment for these tools.
So if we could enforce certain tools at build time (i.e. by using a pre- or 
suffixed version), we could steer around a lot of problems and I wouldn't really 
care about this anymore.
Not sure if that is realistic though, since it might require quite a few changes 
to the code, both in the exheres as well as paludis?



More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list