From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: toolchain-r1.eclass
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:58:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1374814737.1207.1.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130725223022.4c760209@caribou.gateway.2wire.net>
El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 22:30 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:26:48 -0700
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > About one month ago I've filed
> > <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474358> about modernizing
> > toolchain.eclass by creating new toolchain-r1.eclass and migrating
> > ebuilds using it to the new eclass.
> >
> > Please see attachments and review the code.
> >
> > One issue has already been raised, and it's prefix-related changes. I
> > don't know what to change there, but I'm happy to test suggested changes.
> >
> > Then there is a question whether toolchain packages should use EAPI 5,
> > and I think providing an upgrade path is a good concern. Given
> > portage/python constraints though, it seems to me it would be fine. If
> > you think it'd be better, I could use a lower EAPI just in case.
> >
> > All feedback is welcome.
>
> I meant to work on this last week but got distracted. I have a bunch of
> build changes testing locally but need to make some cross compilers.
>
> I don't think we will be moving to 5 very soon. I have nothing against it but
> Mike might be a harder sell. I want USE deps so I'm going to do 2 at least,
> then get the prefix guys on board for 3.
>
> Like I said on the bug I don't think we want to do a new eclass (or if we did I
> would make a toolchain-next for masked versions and backport stuff).
>
>
Last time I talked with him, Mike was ok with eapi4 for base-system
packages, but no idea if toolchain will have a special treatment. Better
wait for him to reply here :/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-26 4:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-25 16:26 [gentoo-dev] RFC: toolchain-r1.eclass "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2013-07-25 16:36 ` Matt Turner
2013-07-26 4:30 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2013-07-26 4:58 ` Pacho Ramos [this message]
2013-08-02 2:00 ` Donnie Berkholz
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=1374814737.1207.1.camel@localhost \
--to=pacho@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