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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FyW2x-0003Xt-FR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:45:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k66FhCN3029236; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:43:12 GMT Received: from mail01.emarketsouth.com (mail01.emarketsouth.com [208.247.233.6]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k66FdQAC028471 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:39:27 GMT Received: (qmail 6232 invoked by uid 399); 6 Jul 2006 15:43:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO onyx) (64.192.54.4) by mail01.emarketsouth.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2006 15:43:34 -0000 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <44AD27B6.4010008@gentoo.org> References: <200607061252.33028@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20060706131905.3ba12b49@snowdrop.home> <200607061429.39803@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20060706134939.6ecd7758@snowdrop.home> <44AD1843.1090707@gentoo.org> <20060706151655.1edaa10f@snowdrop.home> <44AD27B6.4010008@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-Gq6bQ7KjmxaRCQDjek5v" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:39:23 -0400 Message-Id: <1152200363.13640.32.camel@onyx> 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 2.4.2.1 X-Archives-Salt: ec8aa955-5383-4344-9156-815b8a7fa318 X-Archives-Hash: cee3b0b7610085316c99a6bb29a84705 --=-Gq6bQ7KjmxaRCQDjek5v Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 17:09 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > You can do it through bashrc. But then, if this is about working around > > Portage's annoying lack of sane cross compile handling, why not put a > > little effort into fixing it properly rather than a lot of effort into > > making the tree more complicated? > > Err, I think you're mixing up different things. > How should portage be > able to do sane cross compiling if you control the instruction sets > through use flags which are blocked in profiles the build system is > using? That is not the case anymore.. See PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT= and the attachment as an example which solves this exact problem. -- Ned Ludd Gentoo Linux --=-Gq6bQ7KjmxaRCQDjek5v Content-Description: Content-Disposition: inline; filename=eprofile-info Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit export PORTDIR=$(portageq envvar PORTDIR) export ROOT=/dev/shm/blah export PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT=${ROOT} PROFILES="$(grep ^[a-z,0-9] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/profiles.desc | awk '{print $2}' | sort -u)" mkdir -p ${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT}/etc/ cd ${PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT}/etc/ for p in ${PROFILES}; do rm -f make.profile ln -s ../../../../${PORTDIR}/profiles/${p} make.profile touch make.conf ls -ld $(readlink -f make.profile) emerge --info done --=-Gq6bQ7KjmxaRCQDjek5v-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list