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 912F1138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:05:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F754E0B95; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:05:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from virtual.dyc.edu (mail.virtual.dyc.edu [67.222.116.22]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AC2E0B95 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) by virtual.dyc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C66197E0631 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:05:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52D84994.3070306@opensource.dyc.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:05:24 -0500 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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 To: gentoo-mips@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-mips] On MIPS using the same CHOST for all multilib ABIs References: <20131228235839.5bb0305a@gentoo.org> <20140116210119.421c952c@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140116210119.421c952c@pomiot.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ee4aefaa-16d5-4244-a05d-a0f8effd6de6 X-Archives-Hash: b9ff9000387b8de60eb5fa58d395fbb1 On 01/16/2014 03:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-12-28, o godz. 23:58:39 > Michał Górny napisał(a): > >> In the multilib stuff, we're using CHOST for two purposes: >> >> 1. wrapped headers are put in /usr/include/$CHOST, >> >> 2. multilib executables are prefixed with $CHOST-. >> >> (...) >> >> I'd suggest that you changed the CHOST values to uniquely identify ABI >> in use, at least in multilib profiles and preferably in all of them. > > Ping. The discussion seems stalled while we're hitting increasing > number of packages that rely on CHOST to run *-config programs. My main > is that AFAICS this is the only upstream-compatible way of handling > this without hackery on our side. > > As far as I understand, if you changed the CHOSTs only for non-native > ABIs (and therefore leaving the prefix used for toolchain unchanged) > the risk should be minimal. > Mike suggested creating another variable which was a combination of CHOST and ABI for the multilib stuff. Why can't you pursue that approach? -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 (716) 829-8197