From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAjZl-0000Is-R3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:33:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j817TrdW011990; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:29:53 GMT Received: from mail-relay-1.tiscali.it (mail-relay-1.tiscali.it [213.205.33.41]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j817QlUR021252 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:26:47 GMT Received: from default (84.222.82.234) by mail-relay-1.tiscali.it (7.2.063) id 431572F3000150E6 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:29:11 +0200 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 9:29:11 +0200 X-Mailer: InScribe Message-ID: References: <4315AE3D.30700@gentoo.org> To: From: "Kevin F. Quinn" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] merge amd64 & x86 arches? (was: crap use flags in the profiles) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j817QlUR021252 X-Archives-Salt: 4189879c-a93d-43b7-9bb5-960a731fed6f X-Archives-Hash: b4822c0bd3cad55f7ea524b754a17baa On 31/8/2005 9:18:53, Stephen P. Becker (geoman@gentoo.org) wrote: > Keep in mind that the *stable* trees of x86 and amd64 are actually > pretty close to the same versions anyway, I just ran gmsoft's imlate > script for amd64 vs. x86 keywords: hmm; missed a biggie - sys-devel/gcc which is stable for amd64 at 3.4.4-r1 and stable for x86 on 3.3.5.20050130-r1. The only way I can think of to deal with amd64/x86 differences other than via an arch keyword is to use masking in profiles. i.e. to mark both versions stable and mask the unwanted version in 'packages'. The downside is that what would have been a testing version is now masked by the profile, and profile masking is a much stronger statement than simply keywording ~. Is there a way to deal with this sort of thing in profiles, without masking? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list