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

[hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>]

Joshua Kinard:
> On 06/16/2014 15:47, hasufell wrote:
>> Jeroen Roovers:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:31:58 +0000
>>> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> 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?
> 

Hardmask half of the tree instead of a single package? Does not sound
reasonable. The fallout will be _huge_ for users who already run
multilib. You will basically get an emerge dump of 500+ blockers.

> 
> 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?
> 

That was already discussed and it will break:
> yes, serving as a distcc server for x86 hosts or using 'cross emerge'
> to build a x86 root from scratch