1 |
Quite honestly I see this as providing no advantage what so ever over |
2 |
the current USE="mmx blah foo" that we already have.. |
3 |
|
4 |
Please explain to me what I'm missing here.. |
5 |
How does this help us? |
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:20 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: |
9 |
> OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. |
12 |
> This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, |
13 |
> it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be |
14 |
> CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2" |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I'm no quite sure, but i assume ppc/ppc32 should leave CPUFLAGS empty, |
17 |
> and ppc/ppc64 should set |
18 |
> CPUFLAGS="altivec". |
19 |
> |
20 |
> |
21 |
> The main reasons for a USE-like implementation om contrast to Diego's |
22 |
> proposal are: |
23 |
> |
24 |
> a) There is no call to gcc involved, but only a call to use(). This |
25 |
> allows usage in metadata phase. |
26 |
> b) There is no implicit (non-transparent) choice made for the users. |
27 |
> c) It doesn't mix CFLAGS' purpose (which has a meaning beyond Gentoo) |
28 |
> with the purpose of optional codepaths. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I know, there aren't use-based deps in portage yet, but I really feel |
31 |
> uncomfortable to be unable to use cpuflags in metadata phase. This is |
32 |
> what worries me most. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Danny |
35 |
> -- |
36 |
> Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
37 |
> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project |
38 |
-- |
39 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
40 |
Gentoo Linux |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |