1 |
On 01/16/2014 04:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Dnia 2014-01-16, o godz. 16:05:24 |
3 |
> "Anthony G. Basile" <basile@××××××××××××××.edu> napisał(a): |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 01/16/2014 03:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
>>> Dnia 2013-12-28, o godz. 23:58:39 |
7 |
>>> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> napisał(a): |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>>> In the multilib stuff, we're using CHOST for two purposes: |
10 |
>>>> |
11 |
>>>> 1. wrapped headers are put in /usr/include/$CHOST, |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>> 2. multilib executables are prefixed with $CHOST-. |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> (...) |
16 |
>>>> |
17 |
>>>> I'd suggest that you changed the CHOST values to uniquely identify ABI |
18 |
>>>> in use, at least in multilib profiles and preferably in all of them. |
19 |
>>> Ping. The discussion seems stalled while we're hitting increasing |
20 |
>>> number of packages that rely on CHOST to run *-config programs. My main |
21 |
>>> is that AFAICS this is the only upstream-compatible way of handling |
22 |
>>> this without hackery on our side. |
23 |
>>> |
24 |
>>> As far as I understand, if you changed the CHOSTs only for non-native |
25 |
>>> ABIs (and therefore leaving the prefix used for toolchain unchanged) |
26 |
>>> the risk should be minimal. |
27 |
>>> |
28 |
>> Mike suggested creating another variable which was a combination of |
29 |
>> CHOST and ABI for the multilib stuff. Why can't you pursue that approach? |
30 |
> Because AC_PATH_TOOL uses CHOST and some random Gentoo invention. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
I got that AC_PATH_TOOL and AC_CHECK_TOOL prefix whatever utility they |
34 |
search for with the canonicalized chost (usually from config.guess), but |
35 |
I still don't see why we need this to avoid hackery? Can you give me a |
36 |
practial example because right now I just don't see a serious problem. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
40 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
41 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
42 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
43 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |