Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Review: news item and script for CPU_FLAGS_X86
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:19:24
Message-Id: pan$2bd16$9b061310$49d298f7$7e000161@cox.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Review: news item and script for CPU_FLAGS_X86 by "Michał Górny"
1 Michał Górny posted on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:40:17 +0100 as excerpted:
2
3 > Display-If-Keyword: amd64 ~amd64 x86 ~x86
4 >
5 > The USE flags corresponding to intruction sets and other features
6 > specific to the x86 architecture are being moved into a separate USE
7 > flag group called CPU_FLAGS_X86.
8
9 So based on this preliminary news item, I decided to get ahead of the
10 game and add the use_expand to the appropriate make.conf sourced file...
11
12 ... and IMMEDIATELY ran into this:
13
14 CPU_FLAGS_X86 ?? I'm ~amd64, do I leave it as-is, change it to
15 CPU_FLAGS_X86_64 (kernel style), or change it to CPU_FLAGS_AMD64 (gentoo
16 style)?
17
18 Knowing what I know about gentoo's use of use_expand, I'm almost certain
19 I leave it as-is: CPU_FLAGS_X86 . But if it's triggering the slightest
20 doubt and hesitation here, and it is, it's certain to be a rather larger
21 source of confusion to many. So...
22
23 Please update the news item to specify that yes, it's _X86 for amd64
24 users as well (assuming my near-certainty above is correct, else make
25 explicit whatever actually applies).
26
27 Here's a second-draft pass at more explicit wording (also corrects a
28 typo, "intruction", that spell-check flagged when I select-pasted):
29
30 The USE flags corresponding to instruction sets and other features
31 specific to the x86 (and amd64) architecture are being moved into a
32 separate USE flag group called CPU_FLAGS_X86. (Because amd64 is an
33 extension of x86, amd64 users use the same group, CPU_FLAGS_X86.)
34
35
36 Additionally, unless the change is going to be atomic across the tree,
37 including existing stable packages /and/ the news item at exactly the
38 same time, I'd suggest an additional paragraph in the news item,
39 suggesting keeping the existing USE flags for some period (the
40 traditional 1-year supported update time period?) as well. First-draft
41 wording (please suggest updates, I'm not entirely comfortable with this
42 but it suffices for first-draft):
43
44 In ordered to cover the transition period, you may wish to keep existing
45 copies of any USE flags transfered to CPU_FLAGS_X86 for a suggested
46 period of one year, or until you've merged updates with the new
47 use_expand form of all affected packages, after which you can remove the
48 old form from your normal USE.
49
50
51 Thanks. The extra work that this whole change entails is appreciated!
52 =:^)
53
54 --
55 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
56 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
57 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Review: news item and script for CPU_FLAGS_X86 "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>