1 |
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:36AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
2 |
> On 01/08/14 05:05 AM, Steven J. Long wrote: |
3 |
> > I don't know why we can't just mask cross-*/whatever in the |
4 |
> > multilib profile, instead of more talk of "masking crossdev" with a |
5 |
> > heavy heart. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Nor do know if that's been done already, as I just found that the |
8 |
> > profiles directory Changelog stopped in 2013, for some reason, and |
9 |
> > I don't have time to chase the files right now. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Sorry for delay, been away and then busy. I was hoping to read |
12 |
> > something more than "mask crossdev" yet again, when I got back. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> Back to the comment on masking -- would a cross-emerge (which i think |
15 |
> uses the target's profile, right?) end up p.masking its own toolchain? |
16 |
|
17 |
No. The cross-* part is an overlay on CBUILD (ie the machine building the |
18 |
software; for a native build this is the same as CHOST in make.conf.) |
19 |
|
20 |
> I agree that masks should be minimized, at most |
21 |
> masking the conflicting cross-* packages in a profile. However if |
22 |
> this causes issues within cross-emerge too, then perhaps adjusting the |
23 |
> crossdev tool to warn or error would suffice when a target that will |
24 |
> conflict with the native toolchain is requested. |
25 |
|
26 |
Well that should happen too: it's a trivial patch, which again has |
27 |
already been discussed in #-embedded. Either vapier gets on and does |
28 |
it now he's back, or someone else will, for an arch they care about. I |
29 |
can't see him caring if it's correct; and after all the mask on the |
30 |
"overlay" itself (which is on CBUILD, remember) is only possible due |
31 |
to the separation inherent in the crossdev design. |
32 |
|
33 |
Nowadays people like to call that "belt'n'braces" or something. When I |
34 |
learnt to code it was called "common-sense." Discussing it wouldn't |
35 |
even arise: it goes without saying. |
36 |
|
37 |
Regards, |
38 |
igli. |
39 |
-- |
40 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |