1 |
Dnia 2014-01-16, o godz. 16:05:24 |
2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <basile@××××××××××××××.edu> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 01/16/2014 03:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > Dnia 2013-12-28, o godz. 23:58:39 |
6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> napisał(a): |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> In the multilib stuff, we're using CHOST for two purposes: |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> 1. wrapped headers are put in /usr/include/$CHOST, |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> 2. multilib executables are prefixed with $CHOST-. |
13 |
> >> |
14 |
> >> (...) |
15 |
> >> |
16 |
> >> I'd suggest that you changed the CHOST values to uniquely identify ABI |
17 |
> >> in use, at least in multilib profiles and preferably in all of them. |
18 |
> > |
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 |
> |
29 |
> Mike suggested creating another variable which was a combination of |
30 |
> CHOST and ABI for the multilib stuff. Why can't you pursue that approach? |
31 |
|
32 |
Because AC_PATH_TOOL uses CHOST and some random Gentoo invention. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Best regards, |
36 |
Michał Górny |