1 |
On Thu 27 Mar 2014 08:41:08 Steven J. Long wrote: |
2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > Steven J. Long wrote: |
4 |
> > > Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
> > > > if they're in $PATH, then the exact location is irrelevant. |
6 |
> > > > they need not be in /usr/bin to cause a problem. |
7 |
> > > > if they're not in $PATH, then you're breaking the cross-compilers |
8 |
> > > > and that is unacceptable. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > Cross-compilation should be supported via cross-emerge, and perhaps a |
11 |
> > > small |
12 |
> > > script the cross-compiler sources to setup the env (ie prefix to PATH in |
13 |
> > > this case) for using CHOST-* tools, like x86-pc-linux-gnu-gcc targetting |
14 |
> > > a straight x86 platform, instead of the normal multilib setup. The |
15 |
> > > latter being used by the former (I'd have thought it was already done.) |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > > The cross tools should NOT pollute the default PATH, simply because the |
18 |
> > > user happened to run crossdev at some point. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > that's bs. people install crossdev to get a cross-compile environment, |
21 |
> > not to get something that only works through `emerge`. attempting to |
22 |
> > restrict it so it only works through `emerge` is unacceptable and it has |
23 |
> > never been that way. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> That's why I suggested a small sh script to source, to setup that |
26 |
> environment. Personally, I do an awful lot more than that just to build a |
27 |
> native chroot, let alone cross-compile. And I really don't see the hardship |
28 |
> for these brave "cross-compilers" of yours in sourcing a small setup |
29 |
> script, which can be added to ~/.bashrc or even the system-wide one, for |
30 |
> anyone who really wants it to apply whenever they login. Is this somehow |
31 |
> beyond our most advanced userbase? |
32 |
> |
33 |
> People may install crossdev to get a cross-compile environment, but it's a |
34 |
> broken design if it's not contained. And BS about how you think it should |
35 |
> ALWAYS go for everybody, only leads to borked "solutions" elsewhere like |
36 |
> telling the people on an amd64 install that they have to run some god-awful |
37 |
> "new" %multilib thing to compile for their secondary ABI. That's just as |
38 |
> counter-intuitive, when you could just fix your borkage and have a clean |
39 |
> setup for everyone. |
40 |
|
41 |
your conclusions are invalid as you're basing them on the assumption that the |
42 |
current multilib system is working correctly and cleanly. it is provably not. |
43 |
|
44 |
sticking your head in the sand and blaming crossdev for errors in the multilib |
45 |
logic is asinine. |
46 |
-mike |