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 A722113877A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FBBFE0BC3; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:42:16 +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 B13C8E0B68 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marga.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jer) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7113133F6E1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:42:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:42:08 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] crossdev and multilib interference Message-ID: <20140616234208.631dc64b@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <539F5327.4060500@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> <1402944163.8309.2.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <539F462E.6050905@gentoo.org> <20140616214257.096c93fc@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <539F49C2.6090008@gentoo.org> <539F4DFA.7020706@gentoo.org> <539F5327.4060500@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 664e6432-1157-4354-9dcf-39467f75e88f X-Archives-Hash: 20385082d697ffd6f9a2266e7514cd7e On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:27:19 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 16/06/14 04:05 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 06/16/2014 15:47, hasufell wrote: > >> So I don't see what else we can do here other than taking more > >> radical steps to INFORM users of these possible breakages... and > >> that's exactly what a hardmask is for. > > > > What about those of us who have been using crossdev to generate > > cross-compilers for years w/o issue, because we run non-multilib? > > Hardmasking crossdev to solve multilib problems doesn't accomplish > > anything, other than just irk us. Why not hardmask the multilib > > stuff instead and leave crossdev alone? > > well, we could hardmask in the multilib profiles... but that's a bit > of a digression OK, let's sum it up. We have multilib users. We have crossdev users. Some multilib users are crossdev users. Some multilib users who are crossdev users have built a cross-toolchain. Some multilib users who have built a cross-toolchain experience bug #500338. Masking crossdev would cause issues for all crossdev users. Masking multilib would cause issues for all multilib users. Masking crossdev on multilib profiles would cause issues for all users of both crossdev and multilib who haven't built a cross-toolchain that irks multilib Masking crossdev on multilib profiles would also cause issues for all users of both crossdev and multilib who haven't built a cross-toolchain at all but now find they want to and run into bug #500338. In short, masking crossdev in any of the above ways results in very little progress, and is detrimental to solving the issue since the mask would prevent testing on a wide range of platforms because of the inconvenience that masking causes, deterring people from even trying. jer