On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 16:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:36:52 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | No offense intended, but as a user, I /like/ to actually know that a > | package keyworded for my arch (segment) is known to work on it in full > | (IMHO) uncrippled amd64 form, not in some (IMHO) "crippled 32-bit > | special case". If we went the other way and removed x86 keywording > | from everything that failed in 64-bit mode, including all 32-bit only > | codecs and the like, x86(32) arch(segment) folks would rightly be > | wailing in protest. > | > | Again, no offense intended, but unless you have some magic way to fix > | that situation, perhaps the MIPS devs and users are willing to live > | with that problem on MIPS, but neither x86(32) users nor amd64 users > | (and by this I'm including devs, which are obviously users as well) > | are interested in being saddled with an unnecessary problem, when the > | current situation avoids it, or I expect the amd64 keyword would have > | never been added. > > It's not magic. We've been handling packages that work on sparc64 but > not sparc32 for years with a single keyword. Just because you (and, > from the looks of things, most of the x86 and amd64 developers) don't > know about some of portage's features doesn't mean they don't exist :)
I think he expected _what_ these features are, and not a just another 'you are clueless with the rest' reply ... ? Help us help you? -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
