On 09/16/2011 06:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote: > > On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger > >> <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > >>>> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because > >>>> x86_32 x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have > >>>> different keywords for different mips abis (64bit and 32bit > >>>> ones) > >>> that'd be nice :) > >> Seems even acceptable. Not sane but acceptable. People tend to > >> keyword packages both '~amd64 ~x86' testing them on amd64 only; > >> amd64 users tend to get sad when someone keyworded a package > >> '~x86' only. > >> > >> On the other hand, it'd be good to have ABI sub-keywords then. > >> Something like 'x86:x86 -*' if a package is actually x86-only. > >> > > I guess there are only a few cases where a package should be > > keyworded for eg x86, but not for amd64, so these few cases can be > > handled by p.masks, right? > > > So, we can have a single x86 keyword, and a single x86 'parent' > > profile, and subprofiles for x86(or x86_32), amd64, and x32. > > > I guess it's not that simple, but I think that's how the mips > > profiles work? > > I am a bit confused by your proposal. Do you suggest to drop 'amd64' > and use x86(parent)/amd64(subprofile)(for x86_64) instead? > Yeap.
And if we're going to use the same keyword for x32/amd64, we can just do it for x86/amd64/x32 too. I don't think that there will be too many differences. -- Stratos Psomadakis <pso...@gentoo.org>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
