Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
its realy a good idea to make targets for qemu selectable =) since not all
targets work all time at the same condition.
By tomorrow I'm going to push the use_expand changes and the unified
qemu ebuild.
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http
On Суббота 16 мая 2009 03:18:09 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Duncan wrote:
> >> Namespace pollution? QEMU_USER_TARGETS and QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS, maybe?
> >
> > Right, anyway either one or two vars, anybody has a strong feeling
> > towards one of them or against any of them?
>
> QEM
Luca Barbato wrote:
Duncan wrote:
Namespace pollution? QEMU_USER_TARGETS and QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS, maybe?
Right, anyway either one or two vars, anybody has a strong feeling
towards one of them or against any of them?
QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS QEMU_USER_TARGETS, that's it.
-USE_EXPAND="APACH
Duncan wrote:
Namespace pollution? QEMU_USER_TARGETS and QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS, maybe?
Right, anyway either one or two vars, anybody has a strong feeling
towards one of them or against any of them?
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_z
Luca Barbato posted 4a082814.2050...@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on Mon, 11 May 2009 15:28:52 +0200:
> I'm not sure if would be better have QEMU_TARGETS or separated
> USER_TARGETS and SOFTMMU_TARGETS.
Namespace pollution? QEMU_USER_TARGETS and QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS, maybe?
Other than that, no
