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 4E310138247 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3834E0A87; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46907E0A87 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot.lan (static-81-219-166-219.devs.futuro.pl [81.219.166.219]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C30333F7ED; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:51:54 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-mips@lists.gentoo.org Cc: hwoarang@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-mips] On MIPS using the same CHOST for all multilib ABIs Message-ID: <20140117195154.4b512793@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <52D9746E.4020200@gentoo.org> References: <20131228235839.5bb0305a@gentoo.org> <20140116210119.421c952c@pomiot.lan> <52D84994.3070306@opensource.dyc.edu> <20140116222418.6229a1b0@pomiot.lan> <52D85D57.9010500@gentoo.org> <20140117054718.5f948b88@pomiot.lan> <52D9746E.4020200@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-mips@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-mips@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/O1XbK+nze1NeXOvvx+I8dcK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: b3582970-3690-4b5b-8c17-5a490ee6203d X-Archives-Hash: a912bf1ac54c4933983981733de1360f --Sig_/O1XbK+nze1NeXOvvx+I8dcK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2014-01-17, o godz. 18:20:30 Markos Chandras napisa=C5=82(a): > On 01/17/2014 04:47 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > Dnia 2014-01-16, o godz. 17:29:43 "Anthony G. Basile" > > napisa=C5=82(a): > >=20 > >> On 01/16/2014 04:24 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > >>> Because AC_PATH_TOOL uses CHOST and some random Gentoo > >>> invention. > >>=20 > >> I got that AC_PATH_TOOL and AC_CHECK_TOOL prefix whatever utility > >> they search for with the canonicalized chost (usually from > >> config.guess), but I still don't see why we need this to avoid > >> hackery? Can you give me a practial example because right now I > >> just don't see a serious problem. > >=20 > > libgpg-error installs ${CHOST}-gpg-error-config. > >=20 > > Now libgcrypt (and possibly other tools) are using AC_PATH_TOOL to > > find it. If we have proper CHOSTs, they find the right > > gpg-error-config and we don't have to put any more effort into > > that. Then libgcrypt installs ${CHOST}-libgcrypt-config. > >=20 > > Now other tools are using AC_PATH_TOOL to find proper > > libgcrypt-config. If we have proper CHOSTs, it just works and we > > don't have to put any more effort into that. > >=20 > > Same goes for LLVM & Mesa. > >=20 > > If we play by the rules nicely, all pieces fit together nicely and > > we don't have to worry. If we don't, we ask the developers to spit > > Gentoo- specific hackery all over the place. > >=20 > You need to consider that besides changing CHOST to new stages (which > is a lengthy and tiring process), you somehow need to migrate existing > users to the new CHOST (no?) otherwise the multilib eclass (or any > other eclass/package) that depends on CHOST will be broken as soon as > they update their tree and try to install package updates. > This is definitely not a pleasant user experience. Well, I'd like someone who knows better than I do to explain how much does changing non-native CHOST affect. I will try to test it a bit by changing CHOST_x86=3Di686-pc-linux-gnu to i386-* locally but an expert opinion would be preferred. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/O1XbK+nze1NeXOvvx+I8dcK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJS2XvKXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOuAkQAIIOsjpg9CfHkS5+NCipa55X 6qcwSBXMcX5nBQ2iQ8L5n0h3hVJvkUX785SSH78aMDfY+gX9SDWReC+1N3+dF4xh BrHddHuRS8KtCbDIxhlXwEGNk6eXGtlwOrfZC5kL3Vi/bWRDGxJvJ2oDW3bGPrUp bXYV63Aa4r0teKJFGCl0gSUZuu+21QZIiOuAF9Mdbu6ns4UPV+AcKhj18j6Z44dy AllsB23llFl1cRWSQjt5+yD/GRCqnuEzSXoP5qzO83O+ZGYsp3WFKxmGaYS23ubS Ui4IBY3QvRhPFSgL8g8NEneXP8e+uPRtR+tirgTcYjhB5mR0gM3bqzj76zYunuLf y3AasbwcWtl0n4hk4LVmhrDuFsEthFaf3FGMtHTEEvtKL9bkeO1Un7dq5iHbF9mb 1WWOPG5mu+XfKBqMQ36tyymRl2wl8IBNxsJjyzWmQVtDa9Bt6tUkB9qcci7zNGpv 8RK22u62slWyNzYiHGWgFfc5PxVsem3BdB4a7vIE7y5BQNRuAFo0hF6ltd25vl/U gCz0rcjlsFTkEFaPgQQuEOj7Js7K1pdw3lGswim1+CfwF9BDETyTPB7shxMqkzPo HQ6ZYPWwYnxx0UyqzRphK7m44Gmt4ZZgOuSSF0XkHRNkGo0meykkr/gWMuSPcSHH 928kUe/ogC6J1GIIpjVv =2SzW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/O1XbK+nze1NeXOvvx+I8dcK--