| 1 |
On 09/22/2012 10:14 AM, Ambroz Bizjak wrote: |
| 2 |
> Yes, sysroot is much better, thanks :) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> So, does anyone have any objections to just having a sysroot condition |
| 5 |
> and no --crosscompile or FEATURES=crosscompile? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Essentially, there's still tc-is-cross-compiler, if you want the real |
| 8 |
> cross-compile semantic, and sysroot conditional dependencies cover any |
| 9 |
> host programs you may need within a tc-is-cross-compiler block, even |
| 10 |
> though it may occasionally install stuff that is not used. But I think |
| 11 |
> it's worth the reduction of complexity. (yes, tc-is-cross-compiler |
| 12 |
> doesn't work at install time, but from my experience you really want |
| 13 |
> the sysroot semantic there, which is available via use sysroot) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If all is well, I'll proceed to implement this. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sounds good to me. Concerning IUSE, there are a few of different ways we |
| 18 |
could handle this: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
1) ebuilds that utilize this flag will simply add it to IUSE |
| 21 |
2) We set USE_IMPLICIT="sysroot" in profiles/base/make.defaults (applies |
| 22 |
to EAPI 5 and later) |
| 23 |
3) We define our HDEPEND EAPI such that "sysroot" is automatically |
| 24 |
considered to be an implicit member of IUSE |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You have to pick one of these, since otherwise USE conditionals |
| 27 |
involving this flag will be considered as invalid. Maybe option #1 is |
| 28 |
best, since that will make it easy to identify ebuilds that are known to |
| 29 |
support sysroot (as long as you add "sysroot" to that _feature_flags |
| 30 |
variable that I've mentioned before, it will be exempt from emerge |
| 31 |
--newuse). |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Zac |
Archives