Re: [gentoo-mips] On MIPS using the same CHOST for all multilib ABIs

["Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org>]

On 01/16/2014 04:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-01-16, o godz. 16:05:24
> "Anthony G. Basile" <basile@opensource.dyc.edu> napisał(a):
>
>> On 01/16/2014 03:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Dnia 2013-12-28, o godz. 23:58:39
>>> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> 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?
> Because AC_PATH_TOOL uses CHOST and some random Gentoo invention.
>

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.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA