From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB5013877A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8932E0EEC; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CBCFE0EE6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:44:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.11.20] (cpe-72-177-217-176.satx.res.rr.com [72.177.217.176]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steev) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA78633FDC1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:44:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1402944163.8309.2.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: crossdev and multilib interference From: Steev Klimaszewski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:42:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <539EF323.7020208@gentoo.org> References: <53208139.2040509@gentoo.org> <1660834.UE1ARX9orZ@vapier> <20140327084108.GA3654@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <31757180.gTPZtqku3h@vapier> <20140330095348.GA18419@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <539E03A9.3010109@gentoo.org> <539E0563.3080302@gentoo.org> <539EF323.7020208@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: a6bc03fa-069e-4e15-84b2-12a723031f62 X-Archives-Hash: 327a3734987eee1bdea30815b6319329 On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 13:37 +0000, hasufell wrote: > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn: > > hasufell schrieb: > >> No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev, > >> unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage. > >> > >> More packages are popping up that randomly break. Recent failures were > >> related to tc-getBUILD_CC. > >> > >> This isn't stable in any way. I'm not blaming anyone, but that's what > >> hardmasking is for. A working solution was declined, so... > > > > If I understand correctly, it is not the crossdev package being present on > > the system, but the generated toolchains that cause the trouble. > > > > I think there are less intrusive options than hardmask, such as pkg_pretend() > > check or blocking offending packages from cross-${CTARGET} category. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > > > > > > There was a proposed solution which works perfectly fine: don't clutter > PATH with crossdev links. > > If any embedded developer needs these tools in PATH he can add them > temporarily (I'm pretty sure he knows how; an elog can be added as > well), via wrapper scripts or whatnot. That's a reasonable trade-off. > > However, toolchain does not agree and I don't randomly touch other > peoples packages (unless there is no response). > > So there are only two things left: > * block crossdev within multilib eclasses (that sounds really wrong to me) > * hardmask it, so we are able to communicate this problem to the user > I'm someone who uses crossdev (and the cross compilers) quite heavily - can you point me to a bug that you're talking about? I'm not in the toolchain, and while I agree that temporarily adding the cross compiler(s) to the PATH is easy, for some of us, it's easier to allow Gentoo to do so. I'm not a huge fan of multilib, but at the same time, I'd like to not see crossdev being hardmasked, just to prove your point. I don't have near as much free time as I'd like, but I may try to squeeze some time in to help out.