Re: [gentoo-mips] On MIPS using the same CHOST for all multilib ABIs

[Markos Chandras]

On 01/17/2014 07:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 01/17/2014 06:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Dnia 2014-01-17, o godz. 18:20:30
>> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> napisał(a):
>>
>>> On 01/17/2014 04:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> Dnia 2014-01-16, o godz. 17:29:43 "Anthony G. Basile"
>>>> <blueness@g.o> napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/16/2014 04:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>>> Because AC_PATH_TOOL uses CHOST and some random Gentoo
>>>>>> invention.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got that AC_PATH_TOOL and AC_CHECK_TOOL prefix whatever utility
>>>>> they search for with the canonicalized chost (usually from
>>>>> config.guess), but I still don't see why we need this to avoid
>>>>> hackery?  Can you give me a practial example because right now I
>>>>> just don't see a serious problem.
>>>>
>>>> libgpg-error installs ${CHOST}-gpg-error-config.
>>>>
>>>> Now libgcrypt (and possibly other tools) are using AC_PATH_TOOL to
>>>> find it. If we have proper CHOSTs, they find the right
>>>> gpg-error-config and we don't have to put any more effort into
>>>> that. Then libgcrypt installs ${CHOST}-libgcrypt-config.
>>>>
>>>> Now other tools are using AC_PATH_TOOL to find proper
>>>> libgcrypt-config. If we have proper CHOSTs, it just works and we
>>>> don't have to put any more effort into that.
>>>>
>>>> Same goes for LLVM & Mesa.
>>>>
>>>> If we play by the rules nicely, all pieces fit together nicely and
>>>> we don't have to worry. If we don't, we ask the developers to spit
>>>> Gentoo- specific hackery all over the place.
>>>>
>>> You need to consider that besides changing CHOST to new stages (which
>>> is a lengthy and tiring process), you somehow need to migrate existing
>>> users to the new CHOST (no?) otherwise the multilib eclass (or any
>>> other eclass/package) that depends on CHOST will be broken as soon as
>>> they update their tree and try to install package updates.
>>> This is definitely not a pleasant user experience.
>>
>> Well, I'd like someone who knows better than I do to explain how much
>> does changing non-native CHOST affect. I will try to test it a bit by
>> changing CHOST_x86=i686-pc-linux-gnu to i386-* locally but an expert
>> opinion would be preferred.
>>
> My comment was not on what side-effects changing the CHOST may have, but
> it requires time and effort for every MIPS user out there. You also need
> to consider that many people have relatively slow MIPS hardware (routers
> and stuff) that will take a good couple of days (if not more) to switch
> to a new CHOST. But still, not everyone is going to do it and forcing
> them is definitely unpleasant.
>

fwiw i talked to Michal on IRC and promised to do some tests on my
mips64/multilib/n32 box to see what the actual problem is and if his
proposal breaks existing installations. Once I have some results, I will
reply to the list.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras