[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles

[Duncan]

Grant Goodyear posted <20050831161516.GJ18440@×××××××××××××.edu>,
excerpted below,  on Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:15:16 -0500:

> Stephen P. Becker wrote: [Wed Aug 31 2005, 08:18:53AM CDT]
>> We don't "live with that problem on MIPS" because it doesn't exist.  If
>> something doesn't work in one spot, we dont' stable keyword it...simple
>> as that.  Also keep in mind that for some stuff, we don't have to test
>> on both.  For example, we have no supported little endian machines that
>> are capable of running X, therefore, we don't care about testing X
>> there.  See how it works?
>
> So, the basic suggestion is that x86 and amd64 would both use the same
> keyword, but that for cases such as valgrind pre-3.0, which didn't work
> at all on amd64, then those package are profile-masked, and there's
> separate amd64 and x86 profiles (as there are now) to handle those
> distinctions?

Thanks!...  Now that's something concrete enough to wrap my brain around,
which is exactly what I was asking for.  Consider the "magic" explained.
Like so much "magic", there's a perfectly good explanation, once you grasp
the concept!  =8^)

I still don't necessarily think it's the best solution for a problem that
seems decently solved as it is (not that my opinion really counts anyway,
as just a user, not one of the many actually doing the work), but at
least I have a clue about how it can be done, now, something I was lacking
the "Eureka moment" necessary to grasp, previously. =8^)  Now I can at
least intelligently follow the debate.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list