| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, you're assuming that a) everyone's using a C compiler, b) that |
| 3 |
> gcc has the slightest clue what it's doing, c) that the user has no |
| 4 |
> problem using nasty hacks to regain control, d) that this information |
| 5 |
> is only needed at compile time, e) that various gcc internal |
| 6 |
> definitions won't change... You're adding a lot of complexity, and thus |
| 7 |
> room for very weird breakages, to something that doesn't need it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
as for... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
b) You kind of have to assume that when running a system that was |
| 12 |
compiled from ground up with gcc |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
c) This is not about "regaining" control. Currently, users who want to |
| 15 |
cross-compile are screwed and need nasty use.mask-hacks to not end up |
| 16 |
with broken binaries. The inability to provide per-package CFLAGS is a |
| 17 |
missing feature in portage, it's got nothing to do with this issue. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Kind Regards, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Simon Stelling |
| 23 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives