Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

[Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>]

Quite honestly I see this as providing no advantage what so ever over
the current USE="mmx blah foo" that we already have..

Please explain to me what I'm missing here..
How does this help us?


On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:20 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal:
> 
> I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree.
> This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86,
> it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be
>   CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2"
> 
> I'm no quite sure, but i assume ppc/ppc32 should leave CPUFLAGS empty,
> and ppc/ppc64 should set
>   CPUFLAGS="altivec".
> 
> 
> The main reasons for a USE-like implementation om contrast to Diego's 
> proposal are:
> 
> a) There is no call to gcc involved, but only a call to use(). This
>    allows usage in metadata phase.
> b) There is no implicit (non-transparent) choice made for the users.
> c) It doesn't mix CFLAGS' purpose (which has a meaning beyond Gentoo)
>    with the purpose of optional codepaths.
> 
> I know, there aren't use-based deps in portage yet, but I really feel
> uncomfortable to be unable to use cpuflags in metadata phase. This is 
> what worries me most.
> 
> Danny
> -- 
> Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list