From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RJZjZ-0000Rq-VE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:51:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A53D21C0EE; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-iy0-f181.google.com (mail-iy0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B1121C021 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:51:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iahk25 with SMTP id k25so4621140iah.40 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:51:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=qiXiHE1jtK+AVqwdtaGS0H/YfMJLmGYp14ltj3s+LNQ=; b=e5pVdLec6hh3qtYv9pGh0nxj+yc5uNRs9Yqcoc0P0dFlPf2EdJjgpuuq0wnKvbYWbu 1+L6DuUpci4DRbLvtFkn0OZRn0pxF6KwzR/oSaxnYY3bhKO1bi2po71972BEkTVyN3oi 0KEMew40ercP/YRtCJxXIrgZBAd/gXUgIOeZI= Received: by 10.43.52.136 with SMTP id vm8mr359072icb.26.1319759467051; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:51:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: vapierfilter@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.203.74 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:50:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20111027174707.21c6cdbe@gentoo.org> References: <4EA91E7E.4000902@gentoo.org> <4EA98204.4030601@gentoo.org> <20111027174707.21c6cdbe@gentoo.org> From: Mike Frysinger Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:50:46 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: M3rX-lPYcBdvFzcSANo5kWt5xho Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 758ba7326a40fc3a143c46af275d0dcc On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:47, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. > > I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P i wouldn't bother as it's most likely not going to be accepted at this time (i haven't kept up-to-date with the hardened threads as i'm traveling atm) -mike