| 1 |
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:11 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> In short: |
| 4 |
> Toolchain packages, for better or worse, are built by eclass. We are |
| 5 |
> not forward-porting toolchain.eclass every time someone decides there |
| 6 |
> are too many EAPIs in the tree. Every change to that eclass breaks |
| 7 |
> something (the trick is to break things people don't care about any |
| 8 |
> more and hope no one notices). I don't know the ins and outs of |
| 9 |
> glibc's eblits but I doubt they would be simple to port either. I |
| 10 |
> also don't know much about toolchain-binutils.eclass, but it seems |
| 11 |
> like it would be doable. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sounds like a good opportunity to replace toolchain.eclass with |
| 14 |
something clean and understandable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives