| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> Don't think I have to reiterate the whole story of having arch specific |
| 6 |
> make.conf files and why that sucks, but just had an idea how to solve |
| 7 |
> the problem other than removing them completely: |
| 8 |
> Just move the arch specific crap (CHOST and CFLAGS) to a separate file, |
| 9 |
> and reintegrate it at install time. So make.conf.x86 in svn would only |
| 10 |
> contain CHOST/CFLAGS and related comments while make.conf (which |
| 11 |
> currently is only a fallback) contains the portage relevant parts, and |
| 12 |
> the ebuild just concatenates them in src_compile to create a single |
| 13 |
> arch specific make.conf.example. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That seems a lot better than the current situation. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> First I also considerd using the "source" instruction instead of |
| 18 |
> reintegrating the files, but that doesn't really work for an example |
| 19 |
> file that's mainly intended to be read by the user. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Of course removing the arch specific files completely and only have |
| 22 |
> the fallback make.conf is still an option, but would need a discussion |
| 23 |
> with releng and the docs team probably. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Perhaps it's better to maintain such arch specific information somewhere else such as the handbook. It'd be nice to keep the docs included with portage as arch independent as possible. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Any objections against doing this for the next releases? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'd like to do this (at least the first option) for the next release. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Zac |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iD8DBQFEH52w/ejvha5XGaMRAnM6AJ9fTcydIqjkuXcrr1lllIcYd+unUQCgt0jJ |
| 38 |
B9xus7XtBMo1bRwWYpu4hC0= |
| 39 |
=IPBf |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives