On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 17:53:25 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:40:42 +0100 Benjamin Schindler > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > Do all amd64 boxes support sse? If they do, you can do: > | Yes, both sse and sse2 > > Right. Then you should not be offering USE flag settings for sse/sse2 > on amd64. The only purpose of those flags is to allow us to build, > say, i686 stages on a pentium4 without having to create a whole new > arch to do so. > > Even if they didn't, according to remarks on irc supporting sse and > friends on amd64 is a very different task from supporting them on x86. > In which case, have different use flags, and plain old use.mask will > work just fine. > > | It would be much cleaner not needing to do this. But lets see > | whether portage people crucify us *G* > > Given that you'll be breaking SRC_URI, IUSE, emerge -pv output, > LICENSE and the cache, and that you'll be tinkering with things that > reaaaallly aren't supposed to be touched, I don't fancy your chances. Yep, if anyone starts to play with portage internals inside an eclass you better prepare for some nasty treatment, I think we had enough issues with the debug eclass in that regard. IMHO the proper way would be to use USE_EXPAND for these flags, but that would require changes to all affected ebuilds as the generic sse/mmx/... flags would be renamed to arch-specific ones. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgp3Nx7u2qmiQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
