1 |
On 09/16/2011 06:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
2 |
> On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote: |
3 |
> > On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger |
5 |
> >> <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> >> |
7 |
> >>>> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because |
8 |
> >>>> x86_32 x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have |
9 |
> >>>> different keywords for different mips abis (64bit and 32bit |
10 |
> >>>> ones) |
11 |
> >>> that'd be nice :) |
12 |
> >> Seems even acceptable. Not sane but acceptable. People tend to |
13 |
> >> keyword packages both '~amd64 ~x86' testing them on amd64 only; |
14 |
> >> amd64 users tend to get sad when someone keyworded a package |
15 |
> >> '~x86' only. |
16 |
> >> |
17 |
> >> On the other hand, it'd be good to have ABI sub-keywords then. |
18 |
> >> Something like 'x86:x86 -*' if a package is actually x86-only. |
19 |
> >> |
20 |
> > I guess there are only a few cases where a package should be |
21 |
> > keyworded for eg x86, but not for amd64, so these few cases can be |
22 |
> > handled by p.masks, right? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> > So, we can have a single x86 keyword, and a single x86 'parent' |
25 |
> > profile, and subprofiles for x86(or x86_32), amd64, and x32. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> > I guess it's not that simple, but I think that's how the mips |
28 |
> > profiles work? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I am a bit confused by your proposal. Do you suggest to drop 'amd64' |
31 |
> and use x86(parent)/amd64(subprofile)(for x86_64) instead? |
32 |
> |
33 |
Yeap. |
34 |
|
35 |
And if we're going to use the same keyword for x32/amd64, we can just do |
36 |
it for x86/amd64/x32 too. I don't think that there will be too many |
37 |
differences. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Stratos Psomadakis |
41 |
<psomas@g.o> |