| 1 |
On Thursday 06 July 2006 10:03, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 2 |
> c) This is not about "regaining" control. Currently, users who want to |
| 3 |
> cross-compile are screwed and need nasty use.mask-hacks to not end up |
| 4 |
> with broken binaries. The inability to provide per-package CFLAGS is a |
| 5 |
> missing feature in portage, it's got nothing to do with this issue. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
deficiency in portage that is being slowly resolved ... this is hardly |
| 8 |
specific to cpu-based USE flags and deserves nothing short of a real fix on |
| 9 |
the portage side |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
as for "broken binaries", i kind of doubt that statement ... when was the last |
| 12 |
time you saw a cross-toolchain accept assembly code written for a different |
| 13 |
architecture ? now if you had said broken builds, i would have agreed with |
| 14 |
you slightly ... but again, refer to the "this is hardly specific to |
| 15 |
cpu-based USE flags" statement from earlier |
| 16 |
-mike |
Archives