Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: sys-apps/texinfo vs @system

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]

On Sunday 31 March 2013 05:19:58 Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:59:52 -0400 as excerpted:
> > it'd be simpler if we just dropped [texinfo] altogether from @system.
> > if people want `info`, they can `emerge` it themselves.  if packages
> > want `makeinfo`, they can DEPEND on it -- few fall into this category
> > (<100 by a rough survey of random Gentoo installs).
> 
> Except... at least for those running build-systems, some of those <100
> pkgs with hard deps on texinfo include automake, autoconf, gcc, and
> e2fsprogs, all of which are pretty core to a gentoo system, at least one
> that builds anything.

any core package that includes info pages should not be regenerating them 
hence should not need texinfo.  i've applied a fix already for gcc to do just 
that.

we've already dropped autoconf/automake from @system since the autotools 
eclass handles that for us.

other packages might need more work along the same way.

> Texinfo may be more practical to remove on binpkg-only systems, tho,
> which might be what you had in mind, but if there was hint of that I
> didn't catch it.

binpkg or custom ROOTs.  both are important to me.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]