From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PzvqJ-0003ZS-BY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:53:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04D8E1C095; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4EB1C08C for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:51:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vapier.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A57E1BC1CE for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:51:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: emboss.eclass as replacement for embassy.eclass Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:51:46 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.3; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) References: <4D7F1633.1080104@gentoo.org> <4D805D2C.4020206@gentoo.org> <4D808495.5070801@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4D808495.5070801@gentoo.org> 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-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2844625.BQ4iVL9uB0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103161451.47198.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: df44a82e883e1f05af97e8a4f1e88ebf --nextPart2844625.BQ4iVL9uB0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 05:36:21 Tom=E1=9A Chv=E1tal wrote: > Dne 16.3.2011 07:48, justin napsal(a): > > On 15/03/11 22:25, Tom=E1=9A Chv=E1tal wrote: > >> i am seriously hurt by $(use_enable amd64 64) > >=20 > > Where is the problem? The purpose of the eclass is not to repeat the > > same code 20 times. Why can't this be here? >=20 > Problem is in amd64, what if we get to 64b mips OR ppc64 or any other > non-32bit arch? or using the upcoming x32 ABI with KEYWORDS=3Damd64 ? if a package has a configure flag to control "64bitness", it is absolutely= =20 broken. figure out what exactly the "64bitness" means (pointer size ? dat= a=20 width ? assumptions about size of long ?) and replace it with a proper=20 configure time check. then the whole 64 configure flag can be thrown away. =2Dmike --nextPart2844625.BQ4iVL9uB0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJNgQbDAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB/D0QALumhFGsA+yVKj7ifLN7XICZ wL6gkUQ3hlZy/n1jeNG4Tl14Tcx3Z3qE/vhusSbQoBhHrhkKicU2w0FxuamHqVCv rH7U09NgzD2IOVNNsIEtYFqjT2OwUv8y23unbxXwwzWJRQrg8iOJipn6E+vplvLR Mszp3JICLdHG7Np5OiWNgfrhLmFE8RYNxIhwoGqfiY7q9R0VKHHlKw0QFuVoGRoi K9v4ahkt7hMtl639sqE+n1CCLTjpiz8iW9StG6S7D4got3Yo7icGplJv3H3drNiH DLgMhNh1JiLSsH6mDNThCzry7XQm6cxz6p+Wt4pkWqZ6mPF7rqTo7D/0lGftTV+p gCirlQFuz5atG/ix+5NKgG9Kz1BXUOyJhlkpgR76yNMqF+tEB593fVDE9caZapg5 F58TRcuBEKNQS0qPaiO4tfgCgF/eogbg2zujSKv42hb3hOahwvN+yHsvSGvGgtoe AUfKNNWxM5hoI7JYxc2RdO2vqkYmUpOG4B6yFnqu3bTwihlUsZX6sHOJTvKZJlGR LlNj5AGNKq2wanK9zguT7uw9LmSDKqsRtThhqzfyb6g59TsB1HbGsdkHolwxvaSu XeeK43Vf2yxeJScgv/dtPpw61WfQk489eaFv8avx6CntmrSppnR1TcxgSC+IF91i HOy79DFU+YVdskx57Fhg =QF8v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2844625.BQ4iVL9uB0--