| 1 |
On 7 April 2013 18:13, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 7 April 2013 08:27, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:11 -0600 |
| 6 |
> > Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> In short: |
| 8 |
> >> Toolchain packages, for better or worse, are built by eclass. We are |
| 9 |
> >> not forward-porting toolchain.eclass every time someone decides there |
| 10 |
> >> are too many EAPIs in the tree. Every change to that eclass breaks |
| 11 |
> >> something (the trick is to break things people don't care about any |
| 12 |
> >> more and hope no one notices). I don't know the ins and outs of |
| 13 |
> >> glibc's eblits but I doubt they would be simple to port either. I |
| 14 |
> >> also don't know much about toolchain-binutils.eclass, but it seems |
| 15 |
> >> like it would be doable. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Sounds like a good opportunity to replace toolchain.eclass with |
| 18 |
> > something clean and understandable. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > -- |
| 21 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I see no reason to break something that works just fine as it is. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
Except it doesn't work just fine if it is so fragile as to break at the |
| 27 |
smallest change (e.g. EAPI bump)... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 33 |
Gentoo developer |
| 34 |
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin |
Archives