Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: crossdev and multilib interference

[Samuli Suominen]

On 27/03/14 08:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu 27 Mar 2014 02:31:01 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> An amd64 multilib system *is* expected to build x86
>>>> binaries that would be hosted on itself. So i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is
>>>> expected to be not a part of any cross-compile toolchain, but a part of
>>>> the native toolchain for the machine's secondary native ABI. Especially
>>>> when i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is in /usr/bin.
>>> sure, and it works just fine when you use the correct toolchain.  if the
>>> user wants to build an ABI using their default toolchain, they can pass
>>> the right ABI flag for it.
>> They can't pass the right ABI flag because only the core parts of the
>> toolchain have the concept of an ABI flag.
>>
>> Sure, binutils and gcc respect "-m32". But what about pkgconfig (and its
>> clones pkgconf and pkgconfig-openbsd)? What about the *-config tools for
>> various libraries? Are you going to patch all of them to respect "-m32"?
> pkg-config does need fixing in some way.  we already know this.  it's why the
> multilib eclasses currently set PKG_CONFIG_XXX vars -- preciously so the
> correct ABI dir is utilized.  and this breaks when using some build systems
> (like scons) where the env gets blown away (although we also know scons
> sucks).


I pushed 0.28-r1 of dev-util/pkgconfig with ABI_X86 support so that you
can directly
call eg. i686-pc-linux-gnu-pkg-config to search from /usr/lib32/pkgconfig/

I'll try to figure something out for pkgconfig-openbsd too. Don't care
about pkgconf.

> i don't care about the *-config scripts.  that's a dead concept long ago
> proven to suck and anything still using it needs fixing.
>

nod