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 1EAV4i-0000Ne-2R for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:04:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7VG0oCX005369; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:00:50 GMT Received: from ctb-mesg8.saix.net (ctb-mesg8.saix.net [196.25.240.88]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7VFwjUJ004814 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:58:45 GMT Received: from gateway.lan (wblv-146-203-172.telkomadsl.co.za [165.146.203.172]) by ctb-mesg8.saix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22893C57 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:00:31 +0200 (SAST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729053A2482 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:34:36 +0200 (SAST) Received: from gateway.lan ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gateway.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00452-17 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:34:29 +0200 (SAST) Received: from lycan.lan (lycan.lan [192.168.0.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4853A23CC for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:34:29 +0200 (SAST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles From: Martin Schlemmer 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="=-NUuPVK8WX4tzwjiGCCtL" Organization: Gentoo Foundation Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:01:07 +0200 Message-Id: <1125511267.7565.1.camel@lycan.lan> 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 2.3.8 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at nosferatu.za.org X-Archives-Salt: 27076a8a-66b6-4e6e-8cfd-8f6485b28bdd X-Archives-Hash: 880a434d167e88a838d90e454e29f4a2 --=-NUuPVK8WX4tzwjiGCCtL Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 16:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:36:52 -0700 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > | No offense intended, but as a user, I /like/ to actually know that a > | package keyworded for my arch (segment) is known to work on it in full > | (IMHO) uncrippled amd64 form, not in some (IMHO) "crippled 32-bit > | special case". If we went the other way and removed x86 keywording > | from everything that failed in 64-bit mode, including all 32-bit only > | codecs and the like, x86(32) arch(segment) folks would rightly be > | wailing in protest. > |=20 > | Again, no offense intended, but unless you have some magic way to fix > | that situation, perhaps the MIPS devs and users are willing to live > | with that problem on MIPS, but neither x86(32) users nor amd64 users > | (and by this I'm including devs, which are obviously users as well) > | are interested in being saddled with an unnecessary problem, when the > | current situation avoids it, or I expect the amd64 keyword would have > | never been added. >=20 > 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 :) I think he expected _what_ these features are, and not a just another 'you are clueless with the rest' reply ... ? Help us help you? --=20 Martin Schlemmer --=-NUuPVK8WX4tzwjiGCCtL 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) iD8DBQBDFfBjqburzKaJYLYRAqGzAJ9F/ZBSL1DCHhDjNRbo2e840LVT/wCdEIqN AIll4FtCYWlrQFsUjQPFsuI= =xi0W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-NUuPVK8WX4tzwjiGCCtL-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list