| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are |
| 3 |
>> advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would |
| 4 |
>> make your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags, |
| 5 |
>> then at least the pkg is a start- if others want different settings |
| 6 |
>> they can compile their own. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The (well, at least one) problem is that you're only thinking about |
| 9 |
> individual packages. However to be of any real use you'd need all |
| 10 |
> packages to use the same system configuration. Otherwise you'll get ABI |
| 11 |
> breakages and other runtime errors. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Stuart mentioned the ABI problem as well: |
| 14 |
> The binary packages need to be built as a set, to be sure that there is no |
| 15 |
> ABI breakage going on. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for C++. |
| 18 |
Is this such a problem for C? I thought that was the whole point of the |
| 19 |
Linux ABI (so developers can in fact use the same binary for different |
| 20 |
distros.) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm guessing you're going to point out all the posts about recompiling your |
| 23 |
whole system after a toolchain upgrade. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So if I understand this right, we can't all compile for the same ABI since |
| 26 |
it changes according to which version of the C compiler/ glibc you're |
| 27 |
using. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Oh, and people using those binaries |
| 30 |
> would ahve to use the same system configuration as well (or at least a |
| 31 |
> very similar one). |
| 32 |
> This pretty much rules out devs submitting home-build binary packages |
| 33 |
> of ebuilds they maintain to a central repository. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
Fair do. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives