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 2279513877A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:05:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 44ED7E0F08; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:05:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.96]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FCEE0EFB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:05:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id F4uz1o00517dt5G5985K3q; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:05:19 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.13] ([50.190.84.14]) by omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id F85K1o00N0JZ7Re3Z85KV0; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:05:19 +0000 Message-ID: <539F4DFA.7020706@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:05:14 -0400 From: Joshua Kinard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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: Re: 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> <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> In-Reply-To: <539F49C2.6090008@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1402949119; bh=DKTA67QPy8mZFaNKc7AlFpWtpyGrqVfQDfHuI12pRlg=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=L7SzMxl+j5j6TKyTJs9Fkzp2Vv13P64teHx+BfgHMeirYoC98hgxtIQEtViOUihe/ pLl75kPOL7JGv/cdlLx7TKwaa/tF/UN5/hcCXP3oUy9wbH0Ru+O/REea2kWBIRkr1Z ZEOQ2QJS5uW1JYkKB6UKer8mRY32mpyJbOuMLtddc/m/Ai+r13jdltA+f4jr+zxUCh FVGIOxdW9miJNAe6Jin+WuRlLgqavrjKvxh7mm26+eX1J3hhpAM7b/12PEyzRZUA2o nDDanGyk0HF4qPQtOiJu0pefhtwzyxC7kBTxgBdrBV1Rt/JgVm9fI4PQG3yFT7+xih zIND0U1vukaRw== X-Archives-Salt: 6233d75e-fce2-4e7e-9407-2ecce58aca12 X-Archives-Hash: 7fccf2c0d62d96b4a55012ba61479f60 On 06/16/2014 15:47, hasufell wrote: > Jeroen Roovers: >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:31:58 +0000 >> hasufell wrote: >> >>> Also check the history of this thread for a few proposed solutions. >> >> The history of this thread and the history of gx86-multilib and >> crossdev development suggest that crossdev was doing nothing wrong until >> gx86-multilib came around and a problem was found between them. Masking >> either for the benefit of the other would be, and let me quote the >> history of this thread out of context just to fit in with the tone and >> mode this sub-thread has taken, "asinine". >> > > This isn't about right or wrong. This is about actual breakage on stable > systems. > > Solutions were proposed, nothing has happened for months. > > 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? Neither hardmask solution is viable, since you'll inconvenience one side for the sake of the other. That's not how you solve problems. Is my understanding of the issue correct, in that, per Bug #500338, crossdev was used to merge an i686-pc-linux-gnu cross-toolchain onto an x86_64-pc-linux-gnu system, resulting in /usr/bin/cross-pkg-config being linked to /usr/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-pkg-config, which causes the problem reported in that bug? If so, is it sensible to allow crossdev to install a cross-toolchain when the underlying machine architecture is the same, just a different ABI? I.e., would a solution be to prevent i686-on-x86_64 or mips64-on-mips, but still allow mips64-on-x86_64, and such? -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS kumba@gentoo.org 4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic