1 |
There are packages (such as perl) which work fine on both x86 and arm, |
2 |
but don't build on x86 cross-compiling for arm. Furthermore, pam-0.78 can |
3 |
be cross-compiled (with a patch available in bug comments), but pam-0.99 |
4 |
will require more work to get to cross-compile. It would be useful to be |
5 |
able to have 0.99 use a keyword (or something) such that it is excluded |
6 |
from cross-compiles and these builds get 0.78 instead. |
7 |
|
8 |
I've got a working patch that extends the KEYWORDS semantics slightly, |
9 |
such that, if KEYWORDS includes -foo, and ACCEPT_KEYWORDS includes foo but |
10 |
not -foo, the package is masked, even if KEYWORDS also includes bar and |
11 |
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS also includes bar. |
12 |
|
13 |
Then you can have the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS value "$ARCH cross" and packages |
14 |
with KEYWORDS including "-cross" will be masked, unless you have "-cross" |
15 |
in packages.keywords. |
16 |
|
17 |
This probably horribly mangles the concept of KEYWORDS, but I can't really |
18 |
tell from reading the documentation that it doesn't work this way. (Of |
19 |
course, I know it doesn't from trying things and reading the source, |
20 |
but...) It doesn't specify whether "foo" or "-bar" on a package takes |
21 |
precedence if "foo" and "bar" both apply to the system. (Of course, it |
22 |
does say that keywords are always ARCHes, which would imply that only one |
23 |
could apply.) I think this all works as expected, however, except that a |
24 |
package having "cross" means that it is known to automatically work if |
25 |
you're cross-compiling, rather than simply meaning that it is known |
26 |
to work if you're cross-compiling and it would work if you were building |
27 |
natively on your target. |
28 |
|
29 |
-Daniel |
30 |
*This .sig left intentionally blank* |
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |