Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: Gentoo x86 AT <x86@g.o>, release@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:20:31
Message-Id: CAEdQ38EC2=7d05tnSR9ArGuC0S=no=Q3KkNs8ueZTKzfvkLx7g@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support by Ben Kohler
1 On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:26 AM Ben Kohler <bkohler@g.o> wrote:
2 > 2) Patch catalyst to start setting CXXFLAGS again. Rather than roll
3 > back to exactly CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" again, it's been suggested that we
4 > start setting COMMON_FLAGS, and CFLAGS="${COMMON_FLAGS}"
5 > CXXFLAGS=${COMMON_FLAGS}" etc. I prepared such a patch a while back
6 > [4], which seems to work but may need a bit of updating.
7 [snip]
8 > [2]
9 > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/catalyst.git/commit/?id=b409bd9bb4b50f69a555e4e148057ade86a7ed16
10
11 I don't think that was intentional, was it?
12
13 That commit looks like it's supposed to just be a plain refactor (It's
14 titled "stagebase.py: Refactor the *FLAGS handling code in
15 chroot_setup()" after all) so it shouldn't have changed behavior. I'm
16 guessing the commit is just broken. It doesn't even look like the
17 commit message was finished when it was pushed.
18
19 I think you should do whatever is required to fix catalyst brokenness.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org>