| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Greg Turner <gmt@×××××.us> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Perhaps, is it SOP to rely on prefixes accepting gx86 keywords from |
| 3 |
> non-prefix arch'es they correspond to? Doesn't that tend to defeat |
| 4 |
> the whole purpose of having prefix-specific keywords as we move toward |
| 5 |
> a single-shared-tree future? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> tia for any insights! |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Re-reading the above, it occurs to me that it might sound like I'm |
| 10 |
employing some sort of rhetorical device to argue for some kind of |
| 11 |
alternate path to the status quo regarding keywords and prefix. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's not it at all :) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Instead, I literally just don't have a clear idea of how various |
| 16 |
moving parts fit together. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm hoping someone with access to the clue-stick will take pity on me |
| 19 |
and scratch out a quick-and-dirty "idiot's guide" describing the |
| 20 |
intended venn-diagram of ARCH/ACCEPT_KEYWORDS USE_EXPAND |
| 21 |
configurations, configurations, rsync/git/overlay trees, and |
| 22 |
e{build,class} KEYWORDS specifiers. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-gmt |
Archives