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