| 1 |
On 02/03/2015 08:55 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/02/15 19:06, vivo75@×××××.com wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Il 02/02/2015 23:30, Pacho Ramos ha scritto: |
| 4 |
>>> El sáb, 31-01-2015 a las 16:48 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió: |
| 5 |
>>>> Hi everyone, |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> We need to revert the following change to toolchain.eclass: |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.647&r2=1.648 |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
>>> Please remember to add a comment to the eclass with the reference to not |
| 13 |
>>> forget in the future why fixincludes stuff is needed ;) |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>> fixincludes only on prefix and bsd is doable/acceptable? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> @pacho. absolutely. part of the process is me learning the layers of history there. |
| 18 |
> its not like the code is hard to read, its just "why was this done?". |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> @vivo75. the fixedincludes are removed after compiling, so they don't make it to $ROOT |
| 21 |
> during qmerge either for linux or bsd/prefix. |
| 22 |
> Its just that are needed during compiling for fbsd/prefix. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To complete this info: At least in prefix they have to be installed as well, |
| 25 |
as subsequent packages may still use host's (libc at least) headers, and gcc |
| 26 |
requires them to be "fixed". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> So a straight revert is fine. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Fine for now, it's forked in prefix-overlay still. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> We need to explain this in a comment in case some "clever" future dev doesn't comes to the |
| 33 |
> same erroneous conclusion, that its okay to just disable their build. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks! |
| 36 |
/haubi/ |
Archives