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 4.43) id 1EA8qU-0005Ng-6O for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:20:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7UGH6Qs021046; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:17:06 GMT Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UGDF4c023239 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:13:15 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc5-cmbg1-5-0-cust40.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([81.103.16.40]:38919 helo=localhost) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:465) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1EA8lV-00085f-5f (Exim 4.51) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:15:13 +0100 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:26:40 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles Message-ID: <20050830172640.736f469e@localhost> In-Reply-To: <43147F4C.1080201@gentoo.org> References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829231247.104e9ff8@snowdrop.home> <1125404657.1964.167.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> <431474CD.3070502@gentoo.org> <43147A30.4020604@gentoo.org> <43147F4C.1080201@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.13 (GTK+ 2.6.8; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spb42@hermes.cam.ac.uk X-Archives-Salt: 72ffdae6-39f6-4803-ab15-a49bce3c538c X-Archives-Hash: 9ec1dceebf9f543bc8a2b14dd719b4b3 On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:46:20 +0200 Francesco R wrote: > Never said this, I've a dual opteron running informix that can *only* > run under a x86 environment. > this is the profile for the main environment: > make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2005.0 > and this one for the chroot: > /chroot/ifx/etc/make.profile -> > ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.0/ > They are covered from completely different keywords and profiles. So it runs fine on amd64, but only with the 32-bit ABI. > With your experience what are the pro and cons of merging different > archs ? Fewer different keywords to manage makes for easier maintenance in most cases. If mips had 6 different keywords for different ABIs/endianness we'd never get anything done. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list