On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 13:37 +0000, hasufell wrote:
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> > hasufell schrieb:
> >> No improvements so far. I am going to hardmask sys-devel/crossdev,
> >> unless someone can explain why we are still in broken stage.
> >>
> >> More packages are popping up that randomly break. Recent failures were
> >> related to tc-getBUILD_CC.
> >>
> >> This isn't stable in any way. I'm not blaming anyone, but that's what
> >> hardmasking is for. A working solution was declined, so...
> >
> > If I understand correctly, it is not the crossdev package being present on
> > the system, but the generated toolchains that cause the trouble.
> >
> > I think there are less intrusive options than hardmask, such as
> > pkg_pretend()
> > check or blocking offending packages from cross-${CTARGET} category.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> >
> >
>
> There was a proposed solution which works perfectly fine: don't clutter
> PATH with crossdev links.
>
> If any embedded developer needs these tools in PATH he can add them
> temporarily (I'm pretty sure he knows how; an elog can be added as
> well), via wrapper scripts or whatnot. That's a reasonable trade-off.
>
> However, toolchain does not agree and I don't randomly touch other
> peoples packages (unless there is no response).
>
> So there are only two things left:
> * block crossdev within multilib eclasses (that sounds really wrong to me)
> * hardmask it, so we are able to communicate this problem to the user
>
I'm someone who uses crossdev (and the cross compilers) quite heavily -
can you point me to a bug that you're talking about? I'm not in the
toolchain, and while I agree that temporarily adding the cross
compiler(s) to the PATH is easy, for some of us, it's easier to allow
Gentoo to do so.
I'm not a huge fan of multilib, but at the same time, I'd like to not
see crossdev being hardmasked, just to prove your point. I don't have
near as much free time as I'd like, but I may try to squeeze some time
in to help out.
