| 1 |
On 02/04/15 03:06, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/03/2015 08:55 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/02/15 19:06, vivo75@×××××.com wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Il 02/02/2015 23:30, Pacho Ramos ha scritto: |
| 5 |
>>>> El sáb, 31-01-2015 a las 16:48 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Hi everyone, |
| 7 |
>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>> We need to revert the following change to toolchain.eclass: |
| 9 |
>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.647&r2=1.648 |
| 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 |
>> @pacho. absolutely. part of the process is me learning the layers of history there. |
| 17 |
>> its not like the code is hard to read, its just "why was this done?". |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> @vivo75. the fixedincludes are removed after compiling, so they don't make it to $ROOT |
| 20 |
>> during qmerge either for linux or bsd/prefix. |
| 21 |
>> Its just that are needed during compiling for fbsd/prefix. |
| 22 |
> To complete this info: At least in prefix they have to be installed as well, |
| 23 |
> as subsequent packages may still use host's (libc at least) headers, and gcc |
| 24 |
> requires them to be "fixed". |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks for the correction. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> So a straight revert is fine. |
| 30 |
> Fine for now, it's forked in prefix-overlay still. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
We could build in intelligence with the appropriate `use prefix`, `use |
| 33 |
userland_BSD` and `use userland_GNU`. I'll probably do a simple revert |
| 34 |
this afternoon so we can have a working toolchain.eclass for fbsd, but |
| 35 |
I'll look at the prefix overlay and compare eclasses and see if we can't |
| 36 |
just bring in the prefix stuff into the main tree in a safe way. If |
| 37 |
fixedincludes is the only issue, then I don't see a problem. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
>> We need to explain this in a comment in case some "clever" future dev doesn't comes to the |
| 41 |
>> same erroneous conclusion, that its okay to just disable their build. |
| 42 |
> Thanks! |
| 43 |
> /haubi/ |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 49 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 50 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 51 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 52 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives