| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:36:32 -0500 Mike Doty <kingtaco@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 5 |
> | [snip] |
| 6 |
> | > This means it is now 36 profiles to support, if we dropped support |
| 7 |
> | > on all profiles except for the new ones. Without having any sort of |
| 8 |
> | > multiple inheritance available, this is really unmanageable. |
| 9 |
> | |
| 10 |
> | This is exactly the same reason why amd64 won't move to a per CPU |
| 11 |
> | subprofile. it might be a good idea for ppc, but not for us. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I believe all discussion on CPU subprofiles has started with "if we had |
| 14 |
> multiple profile support then". Would the situation be any different if |
| 15 |
> it were just a case of telling Portage to use |
| 16 |
> base/default-linux/x86/2008.1 + extras/x86/cpu/pentium4? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
that would make it feasible, still not convinced it's the right way to go... |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives