| 1 |
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:24:10 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tuesday 09 April 2013 01:57:47 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:20:28 -0600 Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > If someone else wants to try and improve the situation, please feel 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 code, but |
| 12 |
> the amount of "tc_version_is_at_least" is fairly low. from time to time, |
| 13 |
> people also create their own gcc ebuild forks which use this eclass either |
| 14 |
> because it's a completely different code base, orit has some serious patches |
| 15 |
> that we aren't interested in carrying, or people want to experiment. current |
| 16 |
> examples: kgcc64 msp430 gcc-apple. we've had other embedded works in the |
| 17 |
> 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 |
-- |
| 23 |
Best regards, |
| 24 |
Michał Górny |
Archives