| 1 |
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32 |
| 6 |
>>> x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have different |
| 7 |
>>> keywords for different mips abis (64bit and 32bit ones) |
| 8 |
>> that'd be nice :) |
| 9 |
> Seems even acceptable. Not sane but acceptable. People tend to keyword |
| 10 |
> packages both '~amd64 ~x86' testing them on amd64 only; amd64 users |
| 11 |
> tend to get sad when someone keyworded a package '~x86' only. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> On the other hand, it'd be good to have ABI sub-keywords then. |
| 14 |
> Something like 'x86:x86 -*' if a package is actually x86-only. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
I guess there are only a few cases where a package should be keyworded |
| 17 |
for eg x86, but not for amd64, so these few cases can be handled by |
| 18 |
p.masks, right? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So, we can have a single x86 keyword, and a single x86 'parent' profile, |
| 21 |
and subprofiles for x86(or x86_32), amd64, and x32. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I guess it's not that simple, but I think that's how the mips profiles work? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Stratos Psomadakis |
| 27 |
<psomas@g.o> |
Archives