| 1 |
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 12:53:48 -0600 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 07:15:57PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 08-11-2012 11:45:48 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > A better way to put this is disabling gen_usr_ldscript on Linux. |
| 9 |
> > > Some of the alternate platforms still use it, so I do not advocate |
| 10 |
> > > killing the function. |
| 11 |
> > > If we go forward with the plan, there is no reason the council |
| 12 |
> > > should reject disabling gen_usr_ldscript on Linux that I am aware |
| 13 |
> > > of. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > This also has to wait until the blockers are resolved on the |
| 16 |
> > > tracker. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Do you suggest to drop the point from the agenda? I'd love that. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I believe we can drop the gen_usr_ldscript question, yes, because if |
| 21 |
> everything else happens, we can just have the toolchain guys make it a |
| 22 |
> noop on Linux. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Something simpler and smoother imho is to just have a profile variable |
| 25 |
that will make gen_usr_ldscript a noop, whatever CHOST or the kernel is. |
| 26 |
New profiles are added with this variable set, wide testing can be done |
| 27 |
without forcing anyone, and voila. It is also simpler for maintaining |
| 28 |
the various OSes, packages that used to install to / can just be |
| 29 |
changed to install to /usr when this variable is set. |
Archives