Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 03:30 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and
> > > > a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them)
> > > > profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in
> > > > having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to
> > > > change them
> > > Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST
> > > in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild
> > > everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of
> > > that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll
> > > have time.
> > >
> > > The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf
> > > for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just
> > > breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of
> > > finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not
> > > sure if I want to break everything ;)
> >
> > CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile.  In fact, I can
> > think of a lot of cases where it does not.  While I agree that it
> > shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a
> > requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember.
>
> The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set
> CHOST in make.conf if you want to.

I wasn't disputing that.  I was only stating that currently, there are
things that *require* CHOST in make.conf that would need to be adjusted.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux