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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <azarah@gentoo.org>
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>
	 <pan.2005.08.31.12.36.51.534697@cox.net>
	 <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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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