1 |
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:36 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 19:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:11 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" |
4 |
> > <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > | On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
6 |
> > | > Untrue. |
7 |
> > | |
8 |
> > | Can I have reasoning? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Take a look at how sparc and mips currently handle packages which will |
11 |
> > run on some CPU kinds or ABIs but not others. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of |
14 |
> change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs... |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
No, Yes, and Yes. |
18 |
|
19 |
> I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64 |
20 |
> users or developers? |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
Well, I guess the theory might be because then you only have one keyword |
24 |
and one base profile to manage - I think. |
25 |
|
26 |
--- |
27 |
|
28 |
From a quick diff, it looks like they are handled via the ABI and |
29 |
PROFILE_ARCH stuff, but what your average sparc/mips dev do not realise, |
30 |
is that most x86 devs, and probably many amd64 devs have no idea what |
31 |
and how the ABI stuff is used. Mostly the ABI stuff was hacked by (and |
32 |
still is mostly if I'm not mistaken) by Jeremy, and they mostly just use |
33 |
ARCH or use to apply x86/amd64 patches. |
34 |
|
35 |
So your basic problem is that: |
36 |
1) They have no idea how sparc/mips does it |
37 |
2) They do not see any benefits |
38 |
3) They get even more confused by the half assed answers they get. |
39 |
|
40 |
So to be frank, I propose that either the alt-arch devs start explaining |
41 |
above instead of half-assed answers and senseless ranting, or shut up. |
42 |
From the amount of _usefull_ comments they have given, it does not look |
43 |
like its really an issue or priority for them besides having some fun. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
Thanks, |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Martin Schlemmer |