Re: [gentoo-dev] Off with your heads!

On 7/7/06, Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If your blog is being aggregated on Planet Gentoo / Universe, it's time to send us a copy of your smiling face. I'm putting out a request for some hackergotchis. Really, you don't want just a few of us to have all the fun, do you? Any chance o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Off with your heads!

Stuart Herbert wrote: > Any chance of you updating the template so that the heads don't look > quite so naff? They're a bit of an afterthought atm, and it shows. I agree, http://planet.gnome.org/ looks so much nicer ;-) -- Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.d

Re: [gentoo-dev] init.d problem

On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 18:18 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 06 July 2006 15:27, Albert Hopkins wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 18:58 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Tuesday 04 July 2006 18:43, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > > > We should think about mechanisms to check if the service i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Curtis Napier wrote: > I could find a million threads in the forums supporting what Ciaran is > saying here. We have been told over and over and over until my head > feels bashed in that MMX/SSE, etc... are NOT TO BE PUT IN CFLAGS!! THAT > IS WHAT USE FLAGS ARE FOR > > Every developer who has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Luca Barbato wrote: > Alternatives: > > - as PPC we provide a default cflags & use tuned per certain cpu > families using profiles, amd64 could provide a nocona profile that bans > 3dnow* useflags. Not really. There are athlon64s and opterons with and without sse3 support. The users who have an s

Re: [gentoo-dev] SpanKY's Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2007

On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 19:40 -0400, Curtis Napier wrote: > Two names I see missing from this (otherwise very good) list are Chris > Gianelloni (wolf31o2) and Donnie Berkholz (spyderous aka dberkholz). I > think everyone knows exactly how much work these two put into Gentoo and > how valuable that co

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007

* Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/07/07 02:13 +0200]: > I'd add to the pot pvdabeel and pylon since was and still is a pleasure > working with them =) I accept the nomination. But I can't add more nominees as all my favorites for the council have been named already ;) On the other hand, thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Simon Stelling wrote: > Luca Barbato wrote: >> Alternatives: >> >> - as PPC we provide a default cflags & use tuned per certain cpu >> families using profiles, amd64 could provide a nocona profile that bans >> 3dnow* useflags. > > Not really. There are athlon64s and opterons with and without sse3

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:08 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > | No, we never spent years telling them not to use your so-called > > | "CFLAGS hacks" that are rather a proper usage of what the compiler > > | gives you. > > Wrong. We di

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:24:49PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:08 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > | No, we never spent years telling them not to use your so-called > > > | "CFLAGS hacks" that are ra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 04:28 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 03:15, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > x86_64 toolchain accepting 3dnow on a nocona arch? :) > > that isnt a cross-compile nor a different architecture > This is the whole point of my solution. > From what yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 05:31 -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:24:49PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:08 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > | No, we never spent years telling t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on > nocona ? I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or > whatever) yet. There is an -march=nocona (which I think was introduced in gcc 3.4) which works for both 3

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Martin Schlemmer wrote: > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on > nocona ? I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or > whatever) yet. There is a -march=nocona, and it doesn't define __3dNOW__. > So now you want to instead of fixing the amd64 pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:31 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > The more I think about the issue and the more I like the complete > profiles for amd64 more than the other solutions. I don't even *want* to think of what this would be for x86. These are what I can think of, so far, with regards to differe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [snip] This means it is now 36 profiles to support, if we dropped support on all profiles except for the new ones. Without having any sort of multiple inheritance available, this is really unmanageable. This is exactly the same reason why amd64 won't move to a per CPU

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> - only Gentoo devs may be nominated > > with that limitation in mind I want to propose some developers that are > doing a lot of work to improve gentoo: > antarus for his treecleaners work I appreci

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:13:09 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Curtis Napier wrote: > > I could find a million threads in the forums supporting what Ciaran > > is saying here. We have been told over and over and over until my > > head feels bashed in that MMX/SSE, etc... are NOT TO

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most > > > patches don't get appp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 15:21 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on > > nocona ? I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or > > whatever) yet. > > There is a -march=nocona, and it doesn't de

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Marius Mauch wrote: >> That's because CFLAGS="-msse" currently doesn't do what the user >> would think it does. Which is the real problem, which we're solving >> with the change Diego suggested. > > Huh? What do you assume users think that CFLAGS=-msse does? > I know some people get confused by th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 15:53, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > Check Chris Gianelloni's mail just now.  For some compilers with some > -march's on x86 it did not explicitly turn on some features (or maybe > not to such a high extend). Uh no, I think he meant that for some borderline processors there's not

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal: I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2" I'm no quite sure,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Friday 07 July 2006 16:20, Danny van Dyk wrote: > I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. Improvement respect the current situation? You're just asking for the same exact treatment that is in place now, but changing its name like it is a change... -- Diego "Flameeyes"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

Danny van Dyk wrote: > OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal: > > I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. Name it SIMD or CPUFEAT to avoid misunderstanding with the other *FLAGS > This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, > it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

Am Freitag, 7. Juli 2006 16:19 schrieb Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò: > On Friday 07 July 2006 16:20, Danny van Dyk wrote: > > I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. > > Improvement respect the current situation? You're just asking for the > same exact treatment that is in place

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

Danny van Dyk wrote: > > USE_EXPAND useflags do not need to be added to either use.desc nor > use.local.desc. One point was adding better description about them to avoid misuse. Further, we keep track of other hardware-related > metadata in USE_EXPAND, too. See INPUT_DEVICE and VIDEO_CARDS. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Friday 07 July 2006 16:40, Danny van Dyk wrote: > USE_EXPAND useflags do not need to be added to either use.desc nor > use.local.desc. You need to put them in misc/.desc > Further, we keep track of other hardware-related > metadata in USE_EXPAND, too. See INPUT_DEVICE and VIDEO_CARDS. Quite a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Further, we keep track of other hardware-related metadata in USE_EXPAND, too. See INPUT_DEVICE and VIDEO_CARDS. Quite a different thing to me, considering the wide quantity of them. But for an handful of useflag it would be a bit of overkill. Perhaps you are th

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Friday 07 July 2006 16:53, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Perhaps you are thinking too narrowly here.  Consider that this > USE_EXPAND could potentially be used to enable cpu specific flags over > more arches than just 32/64-bit x86.  It seems clear that ppc and sparc > could already benefit, and I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:03 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 15:53, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > Check Chris Gianelloni's mail just now. For some compilers with some > > -march's on x86 it did not explicitly turn on some features (or maybe > > not to such a high exte

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:20:08 +0200 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal: > > I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. I don't like the name - I'd prefer something like CPU_SUBMODEL or CPU_FEATURES or perhaps A

[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

Pierre Guinoiseau writes: pam-login is now included in shadow, you no longer need to emerge it. Thanks, that's what I needed to know. I had done an emerge -D world, and suddenly I couldn't "turn on the PC". I later found out that /sbin/login had been removed. Richard Fish writes: USE="mono"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:59 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > So the question is: why they aren't useflags in the first place? There has to > be a reason, or it would just be that up to now we did the same thing in > different ways just because of it. Most likely. Have you ever looked a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

Quite honestly I see this as providing no advantage what so ever over the current USE="mmx blah foo" that we already have.. Please explain to me what I'm missing here.. How does this help us? On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:20 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flamee

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 17:46 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:20:08 +0200 > Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Diego's proposal essentially generates CPU_SUBMODEL automatically from > CFLAGS - which could be the default behaviour if CPU_SUBMODEL is not > set. That way w

Re: [gentoo-dev] CPU subprofiles (was: Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:36:32 -0500 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Chris Gianelloni wrote: | [snip] | > This means it is now 36 profiles to support, if we dropped support | > on all profiles except for the new ones. Without having any sort of | > multiple inheritance available, this is real

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:20:08 +0200 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. | This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, | it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be | CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2"

Re: [gentoo-dev] CPU subprofiles

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:36:32 -0500 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Chris Gianelloni wrote: | [snip] | > This means it is now 36 profiles to support, if we dropped support | > on all profiles except for the new ones. Without having any sort of | > multiple inheritanc

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > > Gentoo's gcc wit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 17:31, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > As I pointed out on irc (to clarify), its still an issue even with > gcc-3.4.6. Its just well enough filtered, and as Mike pointed out, they > 'fixed' it in 3.4.5 via specs, and 3.4.6 by backporting patches from > 4.0.1 I think. For what I kn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On 7/7/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's because CFLAGS="-msse" currently doesn't do what the user would think it does. Which is the real problem, which we're solving with the change Diego suggested. Well I certainly do *not* expect it to run configure with "--enable-sse". -

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 18:53 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 > > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Thursd

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN: why make.globals?

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:27:39 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But anyway, base/make.defaults makes sense for now. It is done. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 13:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:31, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > As I pointed out on irc (to clarify), its still an issue even with > > gcc-3.4.6. Its just well enough filtered, and as Mike pointed out, they > > 'fixed' it in 3.4.5 via spec

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs

Every now and then someone get sick of Gentoo and suddenly became prophet, preaching that the end of the distro is near. I wanted to see how much should we worry about it so I've made a perl script to find the history of the following characteristics: - no. of active developers (active dev := did

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the > vanilla flag being removed all together.. Is that a threat? If not, is there a reason behind this? > You want a pure 100% > vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:34:49 +0300 Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I am aware those characteristics are quantitative and don't say | anything about the quality of the distribution. They're also somewhat skewed, given all the modular ebuilds people are making of late... -- Ciaran McCrees

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:34:49 +0300 Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | I am aware those characteristics are quantitative and don't say > | anything about the quality of the distribution. > > They're also somewhat skewed, given al

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:46:14 +0200: > Diego's proposal essentially generates CPU_SUBMODEL automatically from > CFLAGS - which could be the default behaviour if CPU_SUBMODEL is not > set. That way we have the best of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs

On 07/07/06, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am aware those characteristics are quantitative and don't say anything about the quality of the distribution. However, judging after those graphs, even the worst basher will recognize that we are far from being dead. It may be a better met

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:40 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the > > vanilla flag being removed all together.. > > Is that a threat? If not, is there a reason behind this? Yes

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On 7/7/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You want a pure 100% vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go download it and compile it yourself. You will soon see why things exist the way they do.. LFS has always been based on a "vanilla" toolchain. Neve

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Friday 07 July 2006 12:53, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact on > > code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the > > additional flags from ssp,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 20:53:12 +0100 "Chris Bainbridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07/07/06, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am aware those characteristics are quantitative and don't say > > anything > > about the quality of the distribution. However, judging after those > > graph

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 03:57:51PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:40 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the > > > vanilla flag being removed all together..

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most patches > > > don't get appplied, but some do. Plus,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On 2006.07.07 14:27, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:31 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > The more I think about the issue and the more I like the complete > profiles for amd64 more than the other solutions. I don't even *want* to think of what this would be for x86. These are what

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Friday 07 July 2006 12:18, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:20:08 +0200 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. > | This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, > | it should not set CPUFLAGS at all,

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Friday 07 July 2006 17:53, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:06:24 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > The issue with this is that $feature on amd64 is not exactly the | > same as $feature on x86. Would a better name be ${ARCH}_FEATURES or | > somesuch? That way there would be no confusion as to whether the | > cpuflags_

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Friday 07 July 2006 18:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:06:24 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > The issue with this is that $feature on amd64 is not exactly the > | > same as $feature on x86. Would a better name be ${ARCH}_FEATURES or > | > somesuch? That way there

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:13:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > ignored *what* then ? you requested USE=vanilla control ssp, i said no and > i'll add support for USE=nossp ... you requested USE/stub control, i said no, > go delete the stubs USE=nossp existed before USE=vanilla did. To be sure

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage: missing pieces

On 7/7/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you using an portage overlay? If so, what is in it? No. No idea what that is. Sounds interesting, though. It is a local portage tree with ebuilds that you have either written yourself or downloaded from others. Since the overlay w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007

On Fri, Jul 7, 2006 at 09:53:36 +0200, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I just wanted to put a few thoughts out there as people contemplate > nominees and the elections for the Gentoo Council. I personally am on > the fence about running this year, because I think there are a lot of >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:36:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | > It'd also make handling use masking much easier. | > | | > | why ? because there wouldnt be anything to mask ? | > | > I'm pretty sure that USE_EXPAND has to be the same across all | > profiles, so no, masking woul

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: > I hope this is specific enough: toolchain.eclass revision 1.234 > (separating ssp/... from vanilla) log message: > "ssp/pie/htb have their own USE flags sep from vanilla, so people can > utilize those" > when in fact the old USE=vanilla behavio

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Assuming that x86 and amd64 both support foo and bar, and that the baz > app supports both on x86 and only foo on amd64: the app would ignore foo by itself and usually people are working on having their tailored x86 code in shape for amd64 (using some tricks as usual...)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo activity graphs

Chris Bainbridge wrote: > It may be a better metric to look at the bugzilla stats. How has the > number of bugs being filed changed? What ratio of filed bugs are > resolved, vs the ones that are left open? bugs.gentoo.org has some > facilities for graphing stats back to December 2005... Bugzilla ca

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:50:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > I hope this is specific enough: toolchain.eclass revision 1.234 > > (separating ssp/... from vanilla) log message: > > "ssp/pie/htb have their own USE flags sep from vanilla, so