1 |
>>Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could |
2 |
>>*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large |
3 |
>>variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with |
4 |
>>differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Sorry I disagree with this, differences exists and sometimes are a |
8 |
> problem. Some package and library don't compile cleanly under amd64 arch. |
9 |
> On few but existant cases it's good to have two different archs. Not |
10 |
> even going near the analizing the differences in the profiles. |
11 |
|
12 |
So these things won't compile in a x86 chroot on a amd64 box even? I |
13 |
find that really hard to believe. Besides, close collaboration between |
14 |
folks with x86 and folks with amd64 installs can make it easy to ensure |
15 |
the same versions work on both arches (if you really want to call them |
16 |
separate arches...) Your profile argument is silly too, since both |
17 |
arches could *easily* be merged into sub-profiles in our cascading system. |
18 |
|
19 |
Besides, we have the same sorts of problems on mips, except they are |
20 |
magnified since we have a possibility of 3 different userland ABIs, on |
21 |
both big and little endian hardware. After dealing with this sort of |
22 |
stuff for a long time with *far* fewer developers and time in general, |
23 |
I'm really not impressed with your argument. You'll have to do better |
24 |
then that. |
25 |
|
26 |
-Steve |
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |