| 1 |
On 7 April 2013 11:41, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 7 April 2013 18:13, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On 7 April 2013 08:27, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |
| 5 |
>> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:11 -0600 |
| 7 |
>> > Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> >> In short: |
| 9 |
>> >> Toolchain packages, for better or worse, are built by eclass. We are |
| 10 |
>> >> not forward-porting toolchain.eclass every time someone decides there |
| 11 |
>> >> are too many EAPIs in the tree. Every change to that eclass breaks |
| 12 |
>> >> something (the trick is to break things people don't care about any |
| 13 |
>> >> more and hope no one notices). I don't know the ins and outs of |
| 14 |
>> >> glibc's eblits but I doubt they would be simple to port either. I |
| 15 |
>> >> also don't know much about toolchain-binutils.eclass, but it seems |
| 16 |
>> >> like it would be doable. |
| 17 |
>> > |
| 18 |
>> > Sounds like a good opportunity to replace toolchain.eclass with |
| 19 |
>> > something clean and understandable. |
| 20 |
>> > |
| 21 |
>> > -- |
| 22 |
>> > Ciaran McCreesh |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> I see no reason to break something that works just fine as it is. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Except it doesn't work just fine if it is so fragile as to break at the |
| 28 |
> smallest change (e.g. EAPI bump)... |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Errr so you are just repeating what I said? It works fine as it is, it |
| 32 |
breaks with other EAPIs so just leave it as it is. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 37 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives