List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 09/16/2011 06:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> > On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger
> >> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >>>> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because
> >>>> x86_32 x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have
> >>>> different keywords for different mips abis (64bit and 32bit
> >>>> ones)
> >>> that'd be nice :)
> >> Seems even acceptable. Not sane but acceptable. People tend to
> >> keyword packages both '~amd64 ~x86' testing them on amd64 only;
> >> amd64 users tend to get sad when someone keyworded a package
> >> '~x86' only.
> >> On the other hand, it'd be good to have ABI sub-keywords then.
> >> Something like 'x86:x86 -*' if a package is actually x86-only.
> > I guess there are only a few cases where a package should be
> > keyworded for eg x86, but not for amd64, so these few cases can be
> > handled by p.masks, right?
> > So, we can have a single x86 keyword, and a single x86 'parent'
> > profile, and subprofiles for x86(or x86_32), amd64, and x32.
> > I guess it's not that simple, but I think that's how the mips
> > profiles work?
> I am a bit confused by your proposal. Do you suggest to drop 'amd64'
> and use x86(parent)/amd64(subprofile)(for x86_64) instead?
And if we're going to use the same keyword for x32/amd64, we can just do
it for x86/amd64/x32 too. I don't think that there will be too many