| 1 |
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:46:01 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <basile@××××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 07/01/2013 02:54 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > 02. Will you vote for moving system packages (gcc, glibc etc.) to |
| 7 |
> EAPI >=3? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > 03. Will you vote for moving system packages (gcc, glibc etc.) to |
| 10 |
> EAPI >=4? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > 04. Will you vote for moving system packages (gcc, glibc etc.) to |
| 13 |
> EAPI >=5? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > 05. Will you vote for deprecation of EAPI 0 in gentoo-x86? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Currently there is a lot of code written in EAPI 0 for the toolchain and |
| 18 |
> this code "just works". Besides being able to build stock systems, it |
| 19 |
> is cable of handling cross compiling, multlilib systems, toolchain |
| 20 |
> hardening, and alternative libc. A lot of utilities are built on that |
| 21 |
> codebase too, like crossdev. It is hard to argue a rewrite here for |
| 22 |
> something that is not broken. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I would not vote at this time for the deprecation of EPI 0. I could be |
| 25 |
> persuaded otherwise by the toolchain herd with a plan. I could also be |
| 26 |
> persuaded if there were some really pressing issues that argue "yes it |
| 27 |
> works now, but soon will hit a brick wall". These would mitigate |
| 28 |
> against a hard "no". |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Paweł was nice enough to write a patch for us to get toolchain.eclass up to EAPI |
| 31 |
5. I believe it still needs some pieces like prefix support and I haven't |
| 32 |
reviewed it in depth but it looks good so far (and much simpler than I thought |
| 33 |
(oops)). I'm planning on moving up an EAPI at a time, bumping it whenever we |
| 34 |
could use new features or people start hucking fruit. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
| 39 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |
Archives