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 A495213877A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43520E0F4F; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4F1E0F3E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EzSu1o0071HzFnQ518zdRk; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:59:37 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.13] ([50.190.84.14]) by omta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id F8zd1o00E0JZ7Re3a8zdKZ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:59:37 +0000 Message-ID: <539F5AB5.7000006@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:59:33 -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> <539F4DFA.7020706@gentoo.org> <539F5288.1000000@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <539F5288.1000000@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=1402952377; bh=CA72VClNjf+9Ub7v4Y0BCGA9p+Fu2QjtN12zvqR6/LA=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=uKd6FboxSrDiRLKbMNLaqyDNXRr3h/IOg7uh2fsHT4cweeSBgnxYa7Ad7CxGUhz1D irAhRAvM6U4oyUF3zzfnlLT5HrYhLSJ4QomuvlWrvoHgJ1xtNh97sPmo6ndZK83ncL jIeKfnFAJAW6AHg4A1X/roofYxq3lFU9FWssQU8E/eLf4aYdi1o1lOFzUetUnmXd4f R/yr5HyhkrRDyneByIdBNVY3NG6++Tg5/2jniYn4tN4QYknrZaDUTvsjNdV1ONROvN uDVq+sTOTe35facMTmBlX7IkB/eaa5Uh1Qm1H1v0ilM4qU0Z7g5b70s02lWeKdiOqj w6CfAxrR1bcvQ== X-Archives-Salt: 7293e4dc-043f-4750-9420-0563dabb4586 X-Archives-Hash: 28cb1b9cfa358e0b6ddf6f69aeaf4f53 On 06/16/2014 16:24, hasufell wrote: > Joshua Kinard: >> 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? >> > > 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. > Which is why I followed with the next paragraph that neither hardmask solution is really viable. You inconvenience a group of people one way or the other, even if you're only doing it just to raise a point and/or awareness. >> >> 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 Then, can crossdev be augmented to work around the invalid behavior? Has anyone looked at crossdev's source to see if the issue can be corrected with a patch? Can the offending feature be made optional via a USE flag? There are other options available than simply hardmasking a package that many find useful. -- 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