From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2627 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2004 14:25:03 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Aug 2004 14:25:03 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BsMhR-00022p-GC for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:25:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 32346 invoked by uid 89); 4 Aug 2004 14:25:01 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 20706 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2004 14:25:00 +0000 From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 23:28:04 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.82 References: <200407311309.53381.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200408040834.24977.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200408031957.29610.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200408031957.29610.vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200408042328.04774.jstubbs@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic SLOTs X-Archives-Salt: ffcd4296-fbfe-494d-a4f0-4a37c4e09de6 X-Archives-Hash: fa60a46be919fa3b72ab6ea535e2e817 On Wednesday 04 August 2004 08:57, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 03 August 2004 07:34 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > That better solution is what I'm looking for here. > > even though the rest of the e-mail suggested otherwise, the truth is a > solution does not exist yet to satisfy the needs of cross compiling ebuilds You may have read it in IRC today, but I'll repeat it for verbosity's sake. I think we can get portage managed cross compilation happening with relatively few changes. Note that this doesn't extend to multilib, which I can't see as being solvable in the same way. Note this also assumes that cross-compilation will always be done into a different root. 1. Allow a profile to define aliases for arbitrary commands. This will allow a profile (even customization of an official profile) to specify to use a cross compiler. 2. Fix portage so that the make.conf, /etc/profile/* and /etc/portage/* found in ${ROOT} are used and the ones found in / are not used at all for any package being compiled for ${ROOT}. 3. Have portage define ${ROOT} as "/" when it is not set by the user. 4. Fix ebuilds so that they link against ${ROOT} rather than assuming "/". #1 is available as of 2.0.51_pre15 (pre14?). #2 is a little difficult but is not beyond reason. #3 is dead simple. #4 is up to everyone else. Is anything else required for cross-compilation? As for gcc slotting the cross-compiler, I don't think it's necessary nor has any bareing on cross-compilation. Having gcc respond to architecture USE flags (prepended with cc- if necessary) and building the cross-compilers in the same merge would work, no? No files get lost track of, all the compilers are upgraded on an emerge --update and, best yet, it's possible to do right now. Am I missing something here? Is there some reason that the gcc ebuilds couldn't work in that way? Same question re mod_php and mod_scgi. Regards, Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list