| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Vlastimil Babka wrote: |
| 5 |
> Apparently, setting USE=x86 in make.conf on amd64 arch can have funny |
| 6 |
> consequences such as [1]. And I can imagine even more subtle and hard to |
| 7 |
> detect errors due to this. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug |
| 10 |
> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such |
| 11 |
> flags. He suggested using use.mask in profiles. Well since ARCH is also |
| 12 |
> set by a profile, why not. Although a really persistent and stupid user |
| 13 |
> could use.unmask, it's better than no protection. And then we can think |
| 14 |
> how to replace the current ARCH->USE flag system with e.g. USE_EXPAND. |
| 15 |
> What do you think? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Vlastimil |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236801 |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I suggest that we unmask the appropriate ARCH flags in |
| 23 |
profiles/arch/*/use.mask, add ../base to profiles/arch/*/parent, and |
| 24 |
create profiles/arch/base/use.mask to mask all of the existing ARCH |
| 25 |
flags. This will serve to mask all but the appropriate ARCH flags |
| 26 |
for all of the 2008.0 profiles. Does this seem reasonable? |
| 27 |
- -- |
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Zac |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjRLiMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOUnACfb+wsK5BbVdNgmuG/KShxDPXy |
| 34 |
hUUAn2a4hwO+4euOmExozx+7MegJZLK7 |
| 35 |
=9/4W |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives