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 1EAVkO-000561-Ab for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:47:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7VGhf5P016531; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:43:41 GMT Received: from smtp04.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7VGeLoe011968 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:40:21 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp04.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j7VGhSvP018054 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:43:28 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:42:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050831163217.60c04bef@snowdrop.home> 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> <4314BA18.8040009@egr.msu.edu> <1125436518.15621.54.camel@darksystem> <20050830214002.1ce72cc2@localhost> <20050831163217.60c04bef@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-MqGruL6L3a6TzZLxa5p5" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:42:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1125506547.7951.40.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: 6f981658-3d75-4b89-b989-063859620564 X-Archives-Hash: 8645034297ac1af79646313f4e6e5fdc --=-MqGruL6L3a6TzZLxa5p5 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 16:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > It's not magic. We've been handling packages that work on sparc64 but > not sparc32 for years with a single keyword. Just because you (and, > from the looks of things, most of the x86 and amd64 developers) don't > know about some of portage's features doesn't mean they don't exist :) This was kinda my point. Developers on sparc and mips are aware of these issues. Developers on amd64 and x86 are not. Forcing the merging of these KEYWORDS would destroy the QA that already is done on these architectures, as most of our developer pool would need some serious training to be able to do this. I know that *I* don't know how to do this myself (yet), but I'm going to look into it. Anyway, can we *please* quit hijacking this thread, as this isn't a "x86 vs. other arches" thread and rather a thread about profiles and their USE flags. If you want to discuss x86's defficiencies, start your own thread, please. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-MqGruL6L3a6TzZLxa5p5 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) iD8DBQBDFd3zkT4lNIS36YERAvMIAKCjS4waaXh2r4Sv6iq2yXj5BGQ0TwCdGFnb xI4KUC5DHhI8NbbK/M5LUMA= =y4x4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-MqGruL6L3a6TzZLxa5p5-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list