Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 03:30 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to change them Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll have time. The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not sure if I want to break everything ;) CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember. The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set CHOST in make.conf if you want to. I wasn't disputing that. I was only stating that currently, there are things that *require* CHOST in make.conf that would need to be adjusted. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:50:47 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 03:30 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to change them Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll have time. The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not sure if I want to break everything ;) CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember. The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set CHOST in make.conf if you want to. I wasn't disputing that. I was only stating that currently, there are things that *require* CHOST in make.conf that would need to be adjusted. You have a list of (some of) these things? From a portage POV those things are broken, the only thing you can safely assume about make.conf is that it exists (and even that is debatable). 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to change them Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll have time. The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not sure if I want to break everything ;) -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpOgH3adXZH5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Hi, Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing in CFLAGS and CHOST (only exception is make.conf.mac which isn't used anymore in any way AFAICT). Where are these files that you're even talking about? From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to change them. For CHOST this seems to be a bad idea, not sure about CFLAGS. Well, the stages have a make.conf that is catalyst generated. So what's the general opinion about this? Having all these different files makes it harder to add config changes, not by much but noticably, so personally I'd like to get rid of them, but if there is a good reason for them to stay I can live with that. Without knowing which files these are, I cannot comment further. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to change them Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll have time. The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not sure if I want to break everything ;) CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:52:28PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing in CFLAGS and CHOST (only exception is make.conf.mac which isn't used anymore in any way AFAICT). Where are these files that you're even talking about? before catalyst started nuking make.conf, they were the standard /etc/make.conf files ... now though, you can find them at /etc/make.conf.example -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:01 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:52:28PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing in CFLAGS and CHOST (only exception is make.conf.mac which isn't used anymore in any way AFAICT). Where are these files that you're even talking about? before catalyst started nuking make.conf, they were the standard /etc/make.conf files ... now though, you can find them at /etc/make.conf.example Ahh... and there's different ones installed based on some criteria, rather than a single example? Now it makes sense. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:01:07PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:01 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:52:28PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing in CFLAGS and CHOST (only exception is make.conf.mac which isn't used anymore in any way AFAICT). Where are these files that you're even talking about? before catalyst started nuking make.conf, they were the standard /etc/make.conf files ... now though, you can find them at /etc/make.conf.example Ahh... and there's different ones installed based on some criteria, rather than a single example? Now it makes sense. congrats, the last horse just came in -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to change them Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll have time. The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not sure if I want to break everything ;) CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember. The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set CHOST in make.conf if you want to. 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why arch-specific make.conf files?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:52:28 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:19 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Hi, Was just about to finally commit the elog related config stuff into make.conf just to notice (again) that there are 14 (in words: fourteen) different make.conf files there, with almost all of them just differing in CFLAGS and CHOST (only exception is make.conf.mac which isn't used anymore in any way AFAICT). Where are these files that you're even talking about? http://viewcvstest.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/cnf/ Installed as make.conf.example by portage. 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
