| 1 |
On Friday 07 July 2006 12:18, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:20:08 +0200 Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
| 3 |
> | I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. |
| 4 |
> | This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, |
| 5 |
> | it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be |
| 6 |
> | CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2" |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The issue with this is that $feature on amd64 is not exactly the same as |
| 9 |
> $feature on x86. Would a better name be ${ARCH}_FEATURES or somesuch? |
| 10 |
> That way there would be no confusion as to whether the cpuflags_sse2 USE |
| 11 |
> flag did something for x86 or for amd64 or for both, since there'd be |
| 12 |
> either x86_features_sse2 or amd64_features_sse2 or both. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
it would make handling in ebuilds a bit more complicated, but then again |
| 15 |
having a unified namespace here would make profile use.masking more |
| 16 |
complicated ... keeping all this information in the ebuild would make life a |
| 17 |
lot easier for developers even if it did make configure flag setup a bit more |
| 18 |
complicated |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> It'd also make handling use masking much easier. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
why ? because there wouldnt be anything to mask ? |
| 23 |
-mike |
Archives