| 1 |
Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>> Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could |
| 4 |
>>> *easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large |
| 5 |
>>> variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with |
| 6 |
>>> differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Sorry I disagree with this, differences exists and sometimes are a |
| 11 |
>> problem. Some package and library don't compile cleanly under amd64 |
| 12 |
>> arch. |
| 13 |
>> On few but existant cases it's good to have two different archs. Not |
| 14 |
>> even going near the analizing the differences in the profiles. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> So these things won't compile in a x86 chroot on a amd64 box even? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Never said this, I've a dual opteron running informix that can *only* |
| 20 |
run under a x86 environment. |
| 21 |
this is the profile for the main environment: |
| 22 |
make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2005.0 |
| 23 |
and this one for the chroot: |
| 24 |
/chroot/ifx/etc/make.profile -> |
| 25 |
../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.0/ |
| 26 |
They are covered from completely different keywords and profiles. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> I find that really hard to believe. Besides, close collaboration |
| 29 |
> between folks with x86 and folks with amd64 installs can make it easy |
| 30 |
> to ensure the same versions work on both arches (if you really want to |
| 31 |
> call them separate arches...) Your profile argument is silly too, |
| 32 |
> since both arches could *easily* be merged into sub-profiles in our |
| 33 |
> cascading system. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Maybe I've not understud the first sentence, what are you saying is that |
| 36 |
amd64 teams can do x86 testing, we agree on this (all not kernel related). |
| 37 |
profiles: /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux{/amd64/2005.1/ , |
| 38 |
x86/2005.1/} looks rather different to me (not analized them deeply) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> Besides, we have the same sorts of problems on mips, except they are |
| 41 |
> magnified since we have a possibility of 3 different userland ABIs, on |
| 42 |
> both big and little endian hardware. After dealing with this sort of |
| 43 |
> stuff for a long time with *far* fewer developers and time in general, |
| 44 |
> I'm really not impressed with your argument. You'll have to do better |
| 45 |
> then that. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
With your experience what are the pro and cons of merging different archs ? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives