Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed changes to base profile for Gentoo/ALT

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:22:25PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 November 2005 15:38, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > -*app-arch/tar
> > put '-*app-arch/tar' into your packages
> I'm still thinking for the eselect-able tar command and virtual/tar, as long 
> as they are syntax-compatible (bsdtar and gnutar are compatible).

then we would make it virtual/tar, we wouldnt remove the package all together

> > > -*sys-process/procps
> > err, this isnt linux specific ... it is ported to other systems (like
> > FreeBSD)
> FreeBSD provide its own ways for these commands, and it will collides with 
> base system commands. Also, the FreeBSD versions uses libkvm to get data and 
> are usually faster/safer.

then you can make a virtual too :P

> > > -*sys-apps/which
> > this isnt linux-specific
> GNU specific, FreeBSD and NetBSD does not require this, have their own 
> versions. It's not masked, as the newer versions should install as gwhich, 
> but it's also not a requirement.

it isnt a GNU package ... the package isnt part of gnu.org and it's used on a 
ton of operating systems as is

it's in system because everyone expects it to be on your system and too many 
scripts just use it out of hand to try and track it

> > > -*virtual/modutils
> > FreeBSD doesnt support kernel modules ?
> Not with the same ideas of Linux. There's no "extra" package for this, the 
> commands are in the base system. Yeah we can probably set the PROVIDE and the 
> virtual but... do we *really* need to add the dep on the virtual for every 
> port? I'd think that just Linux has reasons of having this (as other system 
> has no alternatives), so no reason to let the other systems resolve an extra 
> virtual...

why dont we get a larger sampling of other systems first :p
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list