[gentoo-user] Re: llvm clang ABI confusion
James tampabay.rr.com> writes: > > 1. Relax your stance and accept that some software out there that you > > might want is 32 bits > > 2. Refuse to have 32 bits, so give up on llvm and clang. Find something > > else and move on. > > You must pick one of those two. There is no magic hidden solution that > > magically lets you have something and also not have it. > OK, (1) can be moved to another system or in a container for those > experiments. I'll choose door number (2). oops transposed the response ==>> choose option 1. Option 2 is for minimalist cluster systems testing. James
[gentoo-user] Re: llvm clang ABI confusion
Alan McKinnon gmail.com> writes: > 1. Relax your stance and accept that some software out there that you > might want is 32 bits > 2. Refuse to have 32 bits, so give up on llvm and clang. Find something > else and move on. > You must pick one of those two. There is no magic hidden solution that > magically lets you have something and also not have it. OK, (1) can be moved to another system or in a container for those experiments. I'll choose door number (2). thx. James
[gentoo-user] Re: llvm clang ABI confusion
Neil Bothwick digimed.co.uk> writes: > > I still want to ensure I have no 32 bit packages on this system. > Why? What is special about 32 bit libraries? They are dependencies like > any other, if a package needs them why try to stop portage installing > them? Experimentation. I trying to only use 64 bit for minimalistic systems development for both embedded and larger linux systems. The idea it to be able to aggregate a variety of 64 bit only systems into clusters. Not really worth going into in depth. Of the 33 packages that recompiled with 32 bit requirements, none are critical to the cluster development work, so I'll just move that work onto a more appropriate system(s). thx, James
