On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and > > > a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) > > > profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in > > > having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to > > > change them > > Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST > > in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild > > everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of > > that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll > > have time. > > > > The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf > > for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just > > breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of > > finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not > > sure if I want to break everything ;) > > CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can > think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it > shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a > requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember. The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set CHOST in make.conf if you want to. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
