[gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Mike Frysinger]

we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because we've never 
actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in their scripts

psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical `emerge 
system` requires these ... that means i'd like to prune them and make package 
maintainers mention when their package needs these to build/run

thoughts ?
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because
| we've never  actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in
| their scripts

Anyone still using ed-style patches rather than context or unified
diffs?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Juha Varkki]

bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
Why on earth are you taking it out?
I use bc quite often actually ..

-- Juha Varkki / dbg

On 4/21/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because
> | we've never  actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in
> | their scripts
> 
> Anyone still using ed-style patches rather than context or unified
> diffs?
> 
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
> 
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Maurice van der Pot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
> bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> Why on earth are you taking it out?
> I use bc quite often actually ..

It's gonna be taken out of system, not removed from portage.
You can still emerge it if you want it, you'll just not be forced to
have it installed anymore.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
> > bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> > Why on earth are you taking it out?
> > I use bc quite often actually ..
>
> It's gonna be taken out of system, not removed from portage.
> You can still emerge it if you want it, you'll just not be forced to
> have it installed anymore.

yeah, dont get me wrong ... i think 'bc' is a cool util, it's just that not 
many people 'new' to the *nix world have any clue what it's for so forcing it 
on them isnt nice ;)
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Luis F. Araujo]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

>On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
>  
>
>>On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
>>>Why on earth are you taking it out?
>>>I use bc quite often actually ..
>>>      
>>>
>>It's gonna be taken out of system, not removed from portage.
>>You can still emerge it if you want it, you'll just not be forced to
>>have it installed anymore.
>>    
>>
>
>yeah, dont get me wrong ... i think 'bc' is a cool util, it's just that not 
>many people 'new' to the *nix world have any clue what it's for so forcing it 
>on them isnt nice ;)
>-mike
>  
>
Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package
than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package
> than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds.

So you think actually knowing what packages truly depend on is a bad idea?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFCaCbJXVaO67S1rtsRAu7OAJi38FTDTyA1Ku8xRWZAsRFmq8T+AKCXP0Vs
KQsT/wGLtXk44SfAUMjC4A==
=HOVe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Luis F. Araujo]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Luis F. Araujo wrote:
>  
>
>>Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package
>>than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds.
>>    
>>
>
>So you think actually knowing what packages truly depend on is a bad idea?
>
>  
>
No. I just don't see the point to unnecessarily remove a package of
249.72 KB that might
be very tricky to find out all of its dependencies and will lead to
(unnecessarily) ebuild rewriting.
bc is the kind of application that has been around long time enough to
cause tricky
problems, that's fine ...  as long as it isn't unncessarily.



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Alec Joseph Warner]

If someone is willing to do the work and not fsck things royally I don't 
see a big deal about it.  If nothing in system depends on it then it 
shouldn't be there, we can trim 250kb off of all our stages and 
liveCD's.  Embedded gains 250kb off of their stuff as well.  I just 
don't want to see giant h0rkage in the tree because the person doing the 
work didn't do a good enough job.  *mutters something about tree 
changesets*.

Luis F. Araujo wrote:
<snip>
> No. I just don't see the point to unnecessarily remove a package of
> 249.72 KB that might
> be very tricky to find out all of its dependencies and will lead to
> (unnecessarily) ebuild rewriting.
> bc is the kind of application that has been around long time enough to
> cause tricky
> problems, that's fine ...  as long as it isn't unncessarily.
> 
> 
> 
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 431 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 19:26 -0400, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
> shouldn't be there, we can trim 250kb off of all our stages and 
> liveCD's.  Embedded gains 250kb off of their stuff as well.  I just 

Amen, brother.

This is something that most people forget.  To some of us, every single
byte of space is important.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Philip Webb]

050421 Juha Varkki wrote:
> 050421 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons
>> and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke them
> Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> Why on earth are you taking it out?  I use bc quite often actually ..

surely the idea of 'system' is to provide all those basic tools
which someone might need when doing sysadmin things without X .
that's why Lynx is included, to allow seeking WWW help & downloading things.
Ed is there because it's needed for Sed, which is useful for sysadmin;
Bc has a similar usefulness.  all at basic console level.

as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it:
try to understand why it was done that way originally.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

Philip Webb wrote:

>Ed is there because it's needed for Sed, which is useful for sysadmin;
>Bc has a similar usefulness.  all at basic console level.
>  
>
sed does not depend on ed, nor does the ed depend on sed.
sed should remain in system since tons of ebuild heavily depends on it.

when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
peeps use vim instead.
anyway, who says you cannot install ed if you want it so bad?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 693 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 10:09 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
> 
> when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,

No. its the only editor that can change a file without munging up the
inodes.  Its very useful because of this.

And its also easy to shoot yourself in the foot because of this.

btw, both ed and bc is used in a lot of configure scripts, more than I
care to remember ( I believe that things like enlightenment had calls to
it...)  so replacing this involves you doing a very massive regression
test. Have fun. 



//Spider
-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

Spider wrote:

>btw, both ed and bc is used in a lot of configure scripts, more than I
>care to remember ( I believe that things like enlightenment had calls to
>it...)  so replacing this involves you doing a very massive regression
>test. Have fun. 
>  
>
why would anyone prefer using ed instead sed in scripts is beyond my
comprehension.
those packages should have their RDEPEND fixed. nothing we can't manage.

anyway, it wasn't me the one who wanted this packages removed from
system. I only supported the idea, which imo is a Good Thing.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Luke Ravitch]

On 2005-04-22 00:15, Alin Nastac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
> peeps use vim instead.

It's been a while, but I was glad I had it.  You might be too next
time you reboot to find that curses has been hosed.

I know, I know... use a live CD - but what if you don't have a CDROM
drive available?

Ok, so maybe it doesn't *need* to be in system (I don't know), but
it's *not* "completely useless".

-- 
Luke
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 22 April 2005 07:35 pm, Luke Ravitch wrote:
> On 2005-04-22 00:15, Alin Nastac <mrness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
> > peeps use vim instead.
>
> It's been a while, but I was glad I had it.  You might be too next
> time you reboot to find that curses has been hosed.

then you could have easily launched /bin/sash and then '-ed <some file>'
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Anthony de Boer]

Alin Nastac wrote:
> when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
> peeps use vim instead.

I use "vi", not "vim", though of course the former is a symlink to the
latter on Linux systems for the last number of years.

Last time I used ed was on an RH system with a broken /usr mount; vi
was on that partition, but ed lived in /bin, so I used it to fix
/etc/fstab.  Using ed is like riding a bicycle; you remember pretty
quickly how to use it.  But then, I've been using Unix since halfway
back to the Epoch.

> anyway, who says you cannot install ed if you want it so bad?

I don't think Larry The Cow wants some group of people deciding that
all Gentoo users have to get exactly a certain set of tools.  The
embedded folk have everything they need if it boots at all, prettymuch.
I'd want to have all the traditional Unix stuff available as a baseline,
while someone coming to Linux for the first time in 2005 might never
want to bother with some of the tools of that older generation.

Possibly there should be a "tradunix" ebuild that pulls in all the
traditional Unix stuff as dependencies (and is otherwise empty), and
similarly for other sets of things people hold dear, just to act as
macros when you're setting up a system.

The baseline should be as barebones as possible.  Offering a set of
things useful to the new user is a useful default, but should be only
that, not a set of things you have to accept if you want to pick and
choose stuff yourself.

-- 
Anthony de Boer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Alec Warner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anthony de Boer wrote:
> Alin Nastac wrote:
> 
>>when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
>>peeps use vim instead.
> 
> 
> I use "vi", not "vim", though of course the former is a symlink to the
> latter on Linux systems for the last number of years.
> 
> Last time I used ed was on an RH system with a broken /usr mount; vi
> was on that partition, but ed lived in /bin, so I used it to fix
> /etc/fstab.  Using ed is like riding a bicycle; you remember pretty
> quickly how to use it.  But then, I've been using Unix since halfway
> back to the Epoch.
> 
> 
>>anyway, who says you cannot install ed if you want it so bad?
<snip>
> The baseline should be as barebones as possible.  Offering a set of
> things useful to the new user is a useful default, but should be only
> that, not a set of things you have to accept if you want to pick and
> choose stuff yourself.
> 
The base-install doesn't include a lot of things I would consider
essential on most systems ( log daemon, cron, mta ) yet those are not in
system.  That is the primary reason why we have a handbook and ask that
people both read and follow it.  If it's generally agreed that something
is important to a system it can always be added there as a suggestion
for installation besides the more...obvious things.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=+Bbo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

Alec Warner wrote:
> The base-install doesn't include a lot of things I would consider
> essential on most systems ( log daemon, cron, mta ) yet those are not in
> system.  That is the primary reason why we have a handbook and ask that
> people both read and follow it.  If it's generally agreed that something
> is important to a system it can always be added there as a suggestion
> for installation besides the more...obvious things.

Well, according to handbook, the reason why those packages aren't
included in `emerge system` is that you can make a choice from several
variants (syslog-ng, sysklogd, metalog,..., dcron, fcron, vixie-cron,...).

I'm not sure if I can *easily* use editor other than nano for
installation from stage1.

-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Athul Acharya]

> Possibly there should be a "tradunix" ebuild that pulls in all the
> traditional Unix stuff as dependencies (and is otherwise empty), and
> similarly for other sets of things people hold dear, just to act as
> macros when you're setting up a system.

I think this is a spectacular idea.  The push towards cleaning out
unneccessary things from system is correct, and should not be halted,
but a sysadmin new to gentoo who wants to have the "standard UNIX
tools" readily available shouldn't have to figure out what's missing
and what's not.  To this end a "tradunix" or somesuch metaebuild that
pulls in bc, ed, etc., as well as possibly some less traditional but
very UNIX-y things that should be on more systems (like nc and lsof)
would be excellent.  Of course, what should be included in this
metaebuild is an open question subject to debate, but that can be
hashed out later and changed when necessary -- but just having it
exist would be a good start.

Athul

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 24 April 2005 04:54 pm, Athul Acharya wrote:
> > Possibly there should be a "tradunix" ebuild that pulls in all the
> > traditional Unix stuff as dependencies (and is otherwise empty), and
> > similarly for other sets of things people hold dear, just to act as
> > macros when you're setting up a system.
>
> I think this is a spectacular idea.

feel free to start a *new thread* (i.e. not just replying to an e-mail in this 
thread and changing the subject ;P)

metapackages are simple to create ... people just need to hash out what they 
think should belong in it
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1738 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 02:46 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050421 Juha Varkki wrote:
> > 050421 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons
> >> and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke them
> > Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> > Why on earth are you taking it out?  I use bc quite often actually ..
> 
> surely the idea of 'system' is to provide all those basic tools
> which someone might need when doing sysadmin things without X .
> that's why Lynx is included, to allow seeking WWW help & downloading things.
> Ed is there because it's needed for Sed, which is useful for sysadmin;
> Bc has a similar usefulness.  all at basic console level.

Ehh... lynx isn't in system.

As for Gentoo's definition of "system" it is everything you *require* to
have a functioning Linux system at the shell, not everything you might
*want* to have.  It is supposed to be as minimal as possible, and it is
up to you to build on it to get the system the way you want.

I say dump them from system.  Two less things that I have to have in
every stage3 tarball and on every release CD.

> as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it:
> try to understand why it was done that way originally.

It *is* broken if it is wasting space on the release media.

The truth is that we remove them during the creation of the release CD,
since we don't use them.  However, they are still in the stages, and on
x86, where we have 5 stage3 images, that is 5 times the wasted space on
the Universal InstallCD and 10 times the wasted space on the mirrors!

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Alec Joseph Warner]

Philip Webb wrote:
> 050421 Juha Varkki wrote:
> 
>>050421 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>>we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons
>>>and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke them
>>
>>Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
>>Why on earth are you taking it out?  I use bc quite often actually ..
> 
> 
> surely the idea of 'system' is to provide all those basic tools
> which someone might need when doing sysadmin things without X .
> that's why Lynx is included, to allow seeking WWW help & downloading things.
> Ed is there because it's needed for Sed, which is useful for sysadmin;
> Bc has a similar usefulness.  all at basic console level.
> 
> as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it:
> try to understand why it was done that way originally.
> 
IIRC, "System" is the set of minimal packages required to get the system 
running.  Lynx is not in system ( although on the liveCD so one can 
view/download web material while on the liveCD ).  "System" has nothing 
to do with administrating your system.  Thats your job as the 
administrator, to have all the utilities installed that you require.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:06:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because we've never 
> actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in their scripts
> 
> psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical `emerge 
> system` requires these ... that means i'd like to prune them and make package 
> maintainers mention when their package needs these to build/run
+1 here, but tracking down all usages of them is going to be a pain.

I'm aware of a a two packages I maintain that make specific use of ed,
namely net-dns/ndu and sys-apps/tcng.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

At 2005-04-21T13:06:57-0400, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because
> we've never actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in
> their scripts
> 
> psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical
> `emerge system` requires these ... that means i'd like to prune them
> and make package maintainers mention when their package needs these to
> build/run

While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages *require*
it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 385 bytes --]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com> wrote:
| While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
| *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!

nano isn't in system.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[David Klaftenegger]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com> wrote:
> | While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
> | *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!
> 
> nano isn't in system.
> 
 # emerge -pve system | grep nano
[ebuild  N    ] app-editors/nano-1.3.4  -build -debug -justify +ncurses
+nls -nomac -slang -spell 0 kB

well, I suppose it is.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 22 April 2005 05:49 pm, David Klaftenegger wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com> wrote:
> > | While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
> > | *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!
> >
> > nano isn't in system.
>
>  # emerge -pve system | grep nano
> [ebuild  N    ] app-editors/nano-1.3.4  -build -debug -justify +ncurses
> +nls -nomac -slang -spell 0 kB
>
> well, I suppose it is.

you did not specify the virtual/editor on your system so portage picked the 
default which is nano

if your system isnt sufficiently configured, nano will be part of `emerge 
system`, but really that isnt *our* fault now is it ? :P
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[David Klaftenegger]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 05:49 pm, David Klaftenegger wrote:
> 
>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com> wrote:
>>>| While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
>>>| *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!
>>>
>>>nano isn't in system.
>>
>> # emerge -pve system | grep nano
>>[ebuild  N    ] app-editors/nano-1.3.4  -build -debug -justify +ncurses
>>+nls -nomac -slang -spell 0 kB
>>
>>well, I suppose it is.
> 
> 
> you did not specify the virtual/editor on your system so portage picked the 
> default which is nano
> 
> if your system isnt sufficiently configured, nano will be part of `emerge 
> system`, but really that isnt *our* fault now is it ? :P
> -mike

no, but where is that documented?

well, another thing to learn about :-)

thanks.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

At 2005-04-22T17:54:31-0400, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 05:49 pm, David Klaftenegger wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
> > > > *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!
> > >
> > > nano isn't in system.
> >
> >  # emerge -pve system | grep nano [ebuild  N    ]
> >  app-editors/nano-1.3.4  -build -debug -justify +ncurses +nls -nomac
> >  -slang -spell 0 kB
> >
> > well, I suppose it is.
> 
> you did not specify the virtual/editor on your system so portage
> picked the default which is nano

It certainly goes against my nature to be serious in a conversation so
otherwise comical, but...

Is there any reason why app-editors/ed doesn't PROVIDE virtual/editor?

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]

maillog: 22/04/2005-20:32:59(-0700): Drake Wyrm types
> It certainly goes against my nature to be serious in a conversation so
> otherwise comical, but...
> 
> Is there any reason why app-editors/ed doesn't PROVIDE virtual/editor?

I'm guessing here, but since ed is in system (that's what this is all
about, right), then virtual/editor would always be satisfied by ed and
there would no point in having ed *and* a virtual/editor in system.

On a related note to another thread, busybox should also provide
virtual/editor :)

-- 
\    Georgi Georgiev   \  Metermaids eat their young.                  \
 /    chutz@gg3.net     /                                               /
\   +81(90)2877-8845   \                                               \

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]