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 1A6A313877A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46894E0BFE; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:41 +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 585E7E0BD7 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (exit-01d.noisetor.net [173.254.216.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4142433FFB1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <539EF0C1.4070206@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:29 +0000 From: hasufell 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: crossdev and multilib interference 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> <20140615202434.13082aac@caribou.gateway.pace.com> In-Reply-To: <20140615202434.13082aac@caribou.gateway.pace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: efe8e6ae-c8e0-4c76-8bc7-84faf278b710 X-Archives-Hash: a5b495e2202ca48df640520b5ae050f0 Ryan Hill: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:53 +0000 > hasufell wrote: > >> Steven J. Long: >>> >>> "I'll see you when you get there, if you ever get there.." >>> >> >> No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev, >> unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage. > > Do that and we'll have to take you out behind the woodshed. > > If you think having broken packages for months in stable arch is ok, then you are wrong. And btw., your funny threats don't impress me anymore. I'll bring this up to the council agenda if you like. This is a non-trivial tree-wide problem and if toolchain keeps ignoring it, then I will hardmask the thing.