[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: crossdev and multilib interference

["Steven J. Long" <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Steven J. Long wrote:
> > > > The cross tools should NOT pollute the default PATH, simply because the
> > > > user happened to run crossdev at some point.
> > > 
> > > that's bs.  people install crossdev to get a cross-compile environment,
> > > not to get something that only works through `emerge`.  attempting to
> > > restrict it so it only works through `emerge` is unacceptable and it has
> > > never been that way.
> > 
> > That's why I suggested a small sh script to source, to setup that
> > environment. Personally, I do an awful lot more than that just to build a
> > native chroot, let alone cross-compile. And I really don't see the hardship
> > for these brave "cross-compilers" of yours in sourcing a small setup
> > script, which can be added to ~/.bashrc or even the system-wide one, for
> > anyone who really wants it to apply whenever they login. Is this somehow
> > beyond our most advanced userbase?
> > 
> > People may install crossdev to get a cross-compile environment, but it's a
> > broken design if it's not contained.
> 
> your conclusions are invalid as you're basing them on the assumption that
> the current multilib system is working correctly and cleanly.

No, I am not. I am basing them on the premise that a "target" SYSROOT is
potentially only one of N such sysroots for the same config.guess stanza.
I expected you to see that usage immediately, and the flexibility that
separation brings. After all, crossdev separates sysroots out already. It's
a trivial change to keep them separate, and it's easy for cross-compilers,
who already deal with this kind of thing, and more, on a daily basis. Only
it gives them more options should they want them, as I for one do.

No, use-cases are not relevant at this point. If you can't see it, that
doesn't meant it's not out there; it just means you're looking in the
wrong direction.

> it is provably not.
> 
> sticking your head in the sand and blaming crossdev for errors in the
> multilib logic is asinine.

And sticking your head in the sand and ignoring flexibility, is simply your
usual ego-waving (as well as providing amusement at your rationalisation-
masquerading-as-logic.) I'd hoped you'd grown past this in the last few years,
since the embarrassing (to you) eclass-manpages awk bug, but evidently not.
It's why you're an awful recruiter, and imo a useless coder, despite being
a very talented QA person and bug-patcher.

The more you code, the more you have to realise how susceptible you are to
mistake. It's *after* you fully realise and _accept_ that, that you become
a truly useful coder. You are clearly still at the wrestling-with-the-ego
stage, after all these years. So you have my sympathy, because I know how
difficult a fight that is, and you're clearly in distress (or you wouldn't
resort to negative personal attacks so frequently, instead of considering
the application. So much bile..) The way to win is to stop fighting,
because you are only fighting yourself.

Accept that you are only a human, and you make mistakes and have blind-spots
just like everyone else. One's just been pointed out to you; do you do the
grown-up thing and accept that, and fix it, or do you keep on with the
tantrums, the dodgy patches and the baroque chain of "fixes" that flow from
your borked "logic"? Grow up, already. Or fire off more bile > /dev/null.

"I'll see you when you get there, if you ever get there.."

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)