| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 3 |
> > From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a |
| 4 |
> > quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) |
| 5 |
> > profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them |
| 6 |
> > in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to change them |
| 7 |
> Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST in |
| 8 |
> make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild everything, as |
| 9 |
> the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of that, I'll try to |
| 10 |
> automatize a more complete building when I'll have time. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf for CHOST |
| 13 |
> instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just breaks :P |
| 14 |
> I think other things might do the same assumption of finding CHOST in |
| 15 |
> make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not sure if I want to break |
| 16 |
> everything ;) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can |
| 19 |
think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it |
| 20 |
shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a |
| 21 |
requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 25 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 26 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 27 |
Games - Developer |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives