| 1 |
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:18 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:11 -0600 |
| 5 |
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > In short: |
| 7 |
> > Toolchain packages, for better or worse, are built by eclass. We are |
| 8 |
> > not forward-porting toolchain.eclass every time someone decides there |
| 9 |
> > are too many EAPIs in the tree. Every change to that eclass breaks |
| 10 |
> > something (the trick is to break things people don't care about any |
| 11 |
> > more and hope no one notices). I don't know the ins and outs of |
| 12 |
> > glibc's eblits but I doubt they would be simple to port either. I |
| 13 |
> > also don't know much about toolchain-binutils.eclass, but it seems |
| 14 |
> > like it would be doable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Sounds like a good opportunity to replace toolchain.eclass with |
| 17 |
> something clean and understandable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sure, I suppose if we were trying to break everything all at once that would |
| 20 |
be the most efficient way to go about it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gcc-porting |
| 25 |
toolchain, wxwidgets by design, by neglect |
| 26 |
@ gentoo.org for a fact or just for effect |
Archives