[gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-30 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:24:12 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote: > On 28.10.2011 2.50, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:47, Ryan Hill wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > >>> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-30 Thread Petteri Räty
On 28.10.2011 2.50, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:47, Ryan Hill wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. >> >> I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P > > i wouldn't bo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-28 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Approaching this naively, can't we just set EAPI="2" in the eclass, see > what breaks and fix?  Or is it more involved because some EAPI="0" > ebuilds would be inheriting it and we'd need  a lot of if "${EAPI}" == 0 > checks interspersed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-28 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 10/27/2011 07:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:47, Ryan Hill wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. >> I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P > i wouldn't both

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 > Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > >> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. > > I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P > Sure, whenever I'm feeling particularly masochistic and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:47, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >> So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. > > I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P i wouldn't bother as it's most likely not going to be accepted at

[gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:03:12 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > So, I honestly see no reason why toolchain should not start using EAPI 2. I await your patch to toolchain.eclass. :P -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets

[gentoo-dev] Re: hardened glibc and gcc dependencies

2011-10-27 Thread Duncan
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. posted on Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:08:36 +0200 as excerpted: > On 10/27/11 11:03 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> In glibc: DEPEND="gcc[hardened?]" >> In gcc: PDEPEND="elibc_glibc? glibc[hardened?]" > > I even got an OK on #gentoo-hardened, but I just realized that EAPI-0 > (that bo