From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EA8Ch-0002rz-9v for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:39:15 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7UFZ5NI005815; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:35:05 GMT Received: from smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UFW0PZ031516 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:32:00 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j7UFZi1W029208 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:35:44 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:33:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <431474CD.3070502@gentoo.org> References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829231247.104e9ff8@snowdrop.home> <1125404657.1964.167.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> <431474CD.3070502@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-i/44UEs7GG08Qcl2GeBq" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:33:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1125416036.7951.2.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 X-Archives-Salt: bdee9c0a-cfea-4d44-b8d0-c8760e6c3120 X-Archives-Hash: 29da4562bf4d047029e74ac41f2102f5 --=-i/44UEs7GG08Qcl2GeBq Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:01 +0200, Francesco R wrote: > > Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could > > *easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large > > variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with > > differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64. >=20 > Sorry I disagree with this, differences exists and sometimes are a > problem. Some package and library don't compile cleanly under amd64 arch. > On few but existant cases it's good to have two different archs. Not > even going near the analizing the differences in the profiles. Actually, they're correct. Both amd64 and x86 could be controlled by the same keyword. The problem really lies in the knowledge base of our developers. I'm not knocking anyone, but if you haven't run on a 64-bit architecture, then you wouldn't understand how to troubleshoot and fix issues with it. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-i/44UEs7GG08Qcl2GeBq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDFHxjkT4lNIS36YERAlAkAJ476eSQcSJXlBC5mvkiMU67KZZMngCeKUZm DqdlSQiR1+ZWkuW4UdKtcpA= =u9No -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-i/44UEs7GG08Qcl2GeBq-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list