1 |
On 7/11/06, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic.sk@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Their phrase, not mine. ;) I think the idea is you should be able to emerge -e |
3 |
> world and walk away and not have anything interrupt the process thus requiring |
4 |
> the user interact with the system. |
5 |
|
6 |
Well yes, but an ebuild that dies, whatever the reason, hasn't much to |
7 |
do with interactivity. |
8 |
|
9 |
> > If a package is known not to work with a certain flag, being able to |
10 |
> > emerge it won't change the fact that it doesn't run. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> If a package is known to not work with a certain flag it should be filtered so |
13 |
> it does run. |
14 |
|
15 |
What will follow isn't only for you. You guys are focusing on the |
16 |
die/filter alternative. Maybe you haven't noticed but I have never |
17 |
stated that I'd prefer ebuilds to die or filter. What I wanted to |
18 |
discuss is can't we do something globally to avoid these bugs coming |
19 |
in, so that we can focus on something else. I don't care yet if it's |
20 |
filtering or dying. And never did I talk about educating the masses. |
21 |
|
22 |
> Do you mean for ebuilds that knowingly break with -ftracer, or for everything? |
23 |
> There are packages that expect to be built with certain flags; not -ftracer, |
24 |
> but others. Fex, libao needs -ffast-math ;). Also, what about ebuilds that do |
25 |
> use -fprofile, like gcc itself? I know toolchain.eclass strips all flags, I'm |
26 |
> just using it as an example. |
27 |
|
28 |
I explained I was talking about a global system, with a possibility |
29 |
for ebuilds/users that wanted/needed it to opt out. It's much easier |
30 |
to "unblock" --fast-math for libao than going through idontknowhowmany |
31 |
bugs about the same number of packages that break with --fast-math, |
32 |
for example. |
33 |
|
34 |
> If you mean just for packages that break with certain flags then absolutely. |
35 |
> But such a mechanism would have to be maintained for every different GCC |
36 |
> version, since -fprofile might not invoke -ftracer in every version, and indeed |
37 |
> some versions might not even recognize -fno-tracer and bail with an error. |
38 |
|
39 |
Let's count together the number of GCC versions we should really care |
40 |
about. 3.4, 4.1, any others ? |
41 |
|
42 |
> Mad props to the bug-wranglers, but I don't think it'll be a cakewalk to |
43 |
> automate this in any sane way. |
44 |
|
45 |
Automate what ? |
46 |
|
47 |
> Right, but how are people supposed to learn something is dangerous if all the |
48 |
> sharp edges have been filed off? And how can you decide which flags are "bad" |
49 |
> and "good" on a global level when for the most part compiler parameters are akin |
50 |
> to black magic? |
51 |
|
52 |
Since when is being a learning tool one of the goals of Gentoo ? |
53 |
|
54 |
Denis. |
55 |
-- |
56 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |