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 1942E138247 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 384E3E0A4A; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42AD7E09BA for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A4933EED5 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:31:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.226, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XeMZNbh42b3O for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94E6B33EE92 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VhLMZ-0004H6-MM for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:31:15 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:31:15 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:31:15 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:30:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20131113151012.04145837@gentoo.org> <5283948F.1000409@gentoo.org> <52841023.9010208@gentoo.org> <20131114061328.09136f6f@gentoo.org> <21125.51627.48994.939938@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <52863020.8040809@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT 6e6fd84 /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: a7a8ee1a-4b81-47a4-afea-2a706c1e970e X-Archives-Hash: 092aa10c92de8758703af4a4b344f8e0 Ian Stakenvicius posted on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:30:56 -0500 as excerpted: > On 15/11/13 06:08 AM, Duncan wrote: >> [2] 32-bit for amd64, but could be the reverse, 64-bit for x86, or >> either one for x86-32, or some other combination for other archs. > > Well, not really -- an x86 toolchain can't build for amd64 or x32 , you > need a crossdev for that. I don't think either multilib-portage or the > multilib-eclass solution are going to be substantive enough to > incorporate crossdev building directly into the package manager. Good point. I let my efforts to be inclusive get the best of my common sense. =:^( -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman