| 1 |
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:03:47 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Well, you're assuming that a) everyone's using a C compiler, b) that |
| 5 |
| > gcc has the slightest clue what it's doing, c) that the user has no |
| 6 |
| > problem using nasty hacks to regain control, d) that this |
| 7 |
| > information is only needed at compile time, e) that various gcc |
| 8 |
| > internal definitions won't change... You're adding a lot of |
| 9 |
| > complexity, and thus room for very weird breakages, to something |
| 10 |
| > that doesn't need it. |
| 11 |
| |
| 12 |
| as for... |
| 13 |
| |
| 14 |
| b) You kind of have to assume that when running a system that was |
| 15 |
| compiled from ground up with gcc |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not really true. GCC can be quite happily wrong about what your CPU |
| 18 |
could support, so long as it's not told to use it. This happens with |
| 19 |
VIS, for example. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
| c) This is not about "regaining" control. Currently, users who want |
| 22 |
| to cross-compile are screwed and need nasty use.mask-hacks to not end |
| 23 |
| up with broken binaries. The inability to provide per-package CFLAGS |
| 24 |
| is a missing feature in portage, it's got nothing to do with this |
| 25 |
| issue. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You can do it through bashrc. But then, if this is about working around |
| 28 |
Portage's annoying lack of sane cross compile handling, why not put a |
| 29 |
little effort into fixing it properly rather than a lot of effort into |
| 30 |
making the tree more complicated? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 34 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives