-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/08/14 05:05 AM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 19/06/14 05:20 PM, Steven J. Long wrote:
>>> Well I've spent far too long at crossdev code, only to see this
>>> and realise you can simply hard-mask:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 19/06/14 05:20 PM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > Well I've spent far too long at crossdev code, only to see this and
> > realise you can simply hard-mask:
> > cross-i686-pc-linux-gnu/{binutils,gcc,glibc,pkg-config} in the
> > amd64 multilib profile, u
Dnia 2014-06-21, o godz. 03:31:30
Greg Turner napisał(a):
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > Thoughts [about wrapping gcc, so that non-native multilib-build ABI's can
> finally return to a world where [[ ${GCC} != *' '* ]] ]?
>
> TLDR: good idea, I'm strongly in favo
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Thoughts [about wrapping gcc, so that non-native multilib-build ABI's can
finally return to a world where [[ ${GCC} != *' '* ]] ]?
TLDR: good idea, I'm strongly in favor of it.
A wrapper would fix horrors like the following, which, last
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/06/14 05:20 PM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:56 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> All multilib packages that use pkgconfig, for one thing. (Which
>> means almost all multilib packages.) Because current crossdev
>> vers
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:17:26 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> I'm a member of toolchain, but that's mostly historical because I used to
> play with a lot of the cross-compile stuff for MIPS and Sparc. Mike and
> Ryan are the two primaries in toolchain right now. If they don't see a
> problem with c
Ryan Hill:
> If doing something dumb like installing a i686 crossdev toolchain on
> x86_64 breaks things, it's because you've done something dumb. Stop doing
> that and things should work better.
>
There have been several reasons mentioned to do what you call dumb. I'm
not going to repeat them.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:29 +
hasufell wrote:
> If you think having broken packages for months in stable arch is ok,
> then you are wrong.
>
> And btw., your funny threats don't impress me anymore.
>
> I'll bring this up to the council agenda if you like. This is a
> non-trivial tree-wide
Ryan Hill:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:53 +
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> Steven J. Long:
>>>
>>> "I'll see you when you get there, if you ever get there.."
>>>
>>
>> No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev,
>> unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage.
>
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:53 +
hasufell wrote:
> Steven J. Long:
> >
> > "I'll see you when you get there, if you ever get there.."
> >
>
> No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev,
> unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage.
Do that and we'll h
really have no idea what you're ranting about. doesn't look discussion worthy
though.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 27/03/14 08:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu 27 Mar 2014 02:31:01 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
An amd64 multilib system *is* expected to build x86
binaries that would be hosted on itself. So i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is
expe
Dnia 2014-03-27, o godz. 02:41:21
Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
> On Thu 27 Mar 2014 02:31:01 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > An amd64 multilib system *is* expected to build x86
> > > > binaries that would be hosted on itself. So i686-
On Thu 27 Mar 2014 02:31:01 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > An amd64 multilib system *is* expected to build x86
> > > binaries that would be hosted on itself. So i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is
> > > expected to be not a part of any cross-compile
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > An amd64 multilib system *is* expected to build x86
> > binaries that would be hosted on itself. So i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is
> > expected to be not a part of any cross-compile toolchain, but a part of
> > the native toolchain for the machi
On Thu 27 Mar 2014 00:41:47 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 22:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wed 26 Mar 2014 12:23:53 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > > On 26/03/14 12:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > that's bs. people install crossdev to get a cross-compile
> > > > env
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 22:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed 26 Mar 2014 12:23:53 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 26/03/14 12:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > that's bs. people install crossdev to get a cross-compile
> > > environment, not to get something that only works through `emerge`.
>
On Wed 26 Mar 2014 12:23:53 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 26/03/14 12:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's bs. people install crossdev to get a cross-compile
> > environment, not to get something that only works through `emerge`.
> > attempting to restrict it so it only works through `emerge` is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/03/14 12:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed 26 Mar 2014 12:25:29 Steven J. Long wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> Greg Turner wrote:
As for how to fix it, if foo-bar-baz-quux crossdev targets
are at ${EROOT}/usr/foo-bar-baz-quux,
On Wed 26 Mar 2014 12:25:29 Steven J. Long wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Greg Turner wrote:
> > > As for how to fix it, if foo-bar-baz-quux crossdev targets are at
> > > ${EROOT}/usr/foo-bar-baz-quux, putting wrappers in
> > > ${EROOT}/usr/foo-bar-baz-quux/cross-wrappers, or something like tha
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Greg Turner wrote:
> > As for how to fix it, if foo-bar-baz-quux crossdev targets are at
> > ${EROOT}/usr/foo-bar-baz-quux, putting wrappers in
> > ${EROOT}/usr/foo-bar-baz-quux/cross-wrappers, or something like that,
> > seems perfectly reasonable... heck, pure speculation,
21 matches
Mail list logo
