| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 16:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:36:52 -0700 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | No offense intended, but as a user, I /like/ to actually know that a |
| 4 |
> | package keyworded for my arch (segment) is known to work on it in full |
| 5 |
> | (IMHO) uncrippled amd64 form, not in some (IMHO) "crippled 32-bit |
| 6 |
> | special case". If we went the other way and removed x86 keywording |
| 7 |
> | from everything that failed in 64-bit mode, including all 32-bit only |
| 8 |
> | codecs and the like, x86(32) arch(segment) folks would rightly be |
| 9 |
> | wailing in protest. |
| 10 |
> | |
| 11 |
> | Again, no offense intended, but unless you have some magic way to fix |
| 12 |
> | that situation, perhaps the MIPS devs and users are willing to live |
| 13 |
> | with that problem on MIPS, but neither x86(32) users nor amd64 users |
| 14 |
> | (and by this I'm including devs, which are obviously users as well) |
| 15 |
> | are interested in being saddled with an unnecessary problem, when the |
| 16 |
> | current situation avoids it, or I expect the amd64 keyword would have |
| 17 |
> | never been added. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It's not magic. We've been handling packages that work on sparc64 but |
| 20 |
> not sparc32 for years with a single keyword. Just because you (and, |
| 21 |
> from the looks of things, most of the x86 and amd64 developers) don't |
| 22 |
> know about some of portage's features doesn't mean they don't exist :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think he expected _what_ these features are, and not a just another |
| 25 |
'you are clueless with the rest' reply ... ? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Help us help you? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Martin Schlemmer |
Archives