From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:50:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1132145447.32133.0.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051116033016.407f0889@sven.genone.homeip.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1912 bytes --]
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 03:30 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and
> > > > a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them)
> > > > profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in
> > > > having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to
> > > > change them
> > > Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST
> > > in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild
> > > everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of
> > > that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll
> > > have time.
> > >
> > > The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf
> > > for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just
> > > breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of
> > > finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not
> > > sure if I want to break everything ;)
> >
> > CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can
> > think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it
> > shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a
> > requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember.
>
> The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set
> CHOST in make.conf if you want to.
I wasn't disputing that. I was only stating that currently, there are
things that *require* CHOST in make.conf that would need to be adjusted.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-16 12:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-15 19:19 [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files? Marius Mauch
2005-11-15 19:26 ` Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
2005-11-15 19:54 ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-11-16 2:30 ` Marius Mauch
2005-11-16 12:50 ` Chris Gianelloni [this message]
2005-11-16 15:04 ` Marius Mauch
2005-11-16 17:47 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2005-11-15 19:52 ` [gentoo-dev] " Chris Gianelloni
2005-11-15 20:01 ` Mike Frysinger
2005-11-15 21:01 ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-11-15 21:12 ` Mike Frysinger
2005-11-16 2:40 ` Marius Mauch
2005-11-15 19:55 ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-11-16 17:18 ` Gustavo Zacarias
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1132145447.32133.0.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org \
--to=wolf31o2@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox