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 1EARyl-0001EJ-TJ
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:46:12 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7VCgdSr028964;
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:42:39 GMT
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7VCdQsi005331
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:39:26 GMT
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org)
by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1EARuP-0005Zx-It
for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:41:41 +0000
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1EARrx-0006RO-RB
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:39:09 +0200
Received: from ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.182])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:39:09 +0200
Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:39:09 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:36:52 -0700
Organization: Sometimes
Message-ID: <pan.2005.08.31.12.36.51.534697@cox.net>
References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829231247.104e9ff8@snowdrop.home> <1125404657.1964.167.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> <4314BA18.8040009@egr.msu.edu> <1125436518.15621.54.camel@darksystem> <20050830214002.1ce72cc2@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table)
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
X-Archives-Salt: e63d6e01-4111-4821-9ae2-69a4a521d849
X-Archives-Hash: a380f5ee1fe3277d5999a6705a444598
Stephen Bennett posted <20050830214002.1ce72cc2@localhost>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:40:02 +0100:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +0000
> Luis Medinas <metalgod@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
>> AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
>> tree that needs to be patched to work on AMD64 so we cannot cover
>> AMD64/x86 under the same keyword.
>
> There are packages that will work on (for example) little-endian mips
> but won't work or will need patching to work on big-endian, yet we
> still cover both of those with one keyword.
OK, I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an explanation
of how to do it, without either causing issues for the one segment, or
holding up keywording perfectly working packages on another segment.
Perhaps it can be done, please explain how if so.
No offense intended, but as a user, I /like/ to actually know that a
package keyworded for my arch (segment) is known to work on it in full
(IMHO) uncrippled amd64 form, not in some (IMHO) "crippled 32-bit special
case". If we went the other way and removed x86 keywording from everything
that failed in 64-bit mode, including all 32-bit only codecs and the like,
x86(32) arch(segment) folks would rightly be wailing in protest.
Again, no offense intended, but unless you have some magic way to fix that
situation, perhaps the MIPS devs and users are willing to live with that
problem on MIPS, but neither x86(32) users nor amd64 users (and by this
I'm including devs, which are obviously users as well) are interested in
being saddled with an unnecessary problem, when the current situation
avoids it, or I expect the amd64 keyword would have never been added.
--
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 in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list