| 1 |
On Tuesday 09 April 2013 16:24:16 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:24:10 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 09 April 2013 01:57:47 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:20:28 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > If someone else wants to try and improve the situation, please feel |
| 6 |
> > > > free. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Just to be sure -- would you be ok if we tried to inline some |
| 9 |
> > > of the eclass code into the ebuilds (future versions/revbumps)? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > not really. you can still build gcc-2.95 and newer with the current |
| 12 |
> > code, but the amount of "tc_version_is_at_least" is fairly low. from |
| 13 |
> > time to time, people also create their own gcc ebuild forks which use |
| 14 |
> > this eclass either because it's a completely different code base, orit |
| 15 |
> > has some serious patches that we aren't interested in carrying, or |
| 16 |
> > people want to experiment. current examples: kgcc64 msp430 gcc-apple. |
| 17 |
> > we've had other embedded works in the past, as well as hardened ones. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Then please don't create a fake feeling like you're going to accept |
| 20 |
> help to improve the situation. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
i have no idea wtf you're talking about |
| 23 |
-mike |
Archives