On Tuesday 20 October 2009 16:47:50 Jonathan Callen wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> The problem was that Gentoo's early amd64 implementation predated this
> >> standardization, and we had chosen the other way. While we've defaulted
> >> to lib64 for 64-bit libs for years, it has never been con
Hello,
Since the "10.0 release" there has not been an outward facing announcement
for users to switch profiles.
* Are we deprecating the 2008.0 profiles?
* Are 10.0 profiles "feature complete" ?
* Will there be an announcement?
* Why are only the 2008.0 hardened profiles deprecated? ( %% find
/us
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you read FHS you'll see that both implementations are allowed. Gentoo
> isnt
> violating anything here. wrt LSB, who knows. there are a ton of things we
> dont follow with LSB.
Actually, at first, FHS says that any /lib would be allowed, but
it then goes into speci
Greetings,
The KDE Team will have its usual monthly meeting this Thursday.
Date: Thursday, 2009/10/22
Time: 1900 UTC
Channel: #gentoo-meetings
Late announcement, I know, but I guess better late than never :)
Reply to this email with anything you'd like to have discussed at the meeting.
Everyo
On Tuesday 20 October 2009 09:06:29 Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> As I'm building the toolchain myself too, I configure it with the
> 32bit host triplet on each platform, usually disabling multilib.
this doesnt make any sense to me
> This simply works for ppc-aix, hppa-hpux, ia64-hpux, sparc-sol
On Monday 19 October 2009 16:59:55 Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > the majority of the time, the compiler driver (i.e. `gcc`) should be used
> > for linking. very few packages should invoke the linker directly. that
> > is why currently the toolchain-func.eclass has tc-getLD re
On Tuesday 20 October 2009 12:25:15 Duncan wrote:
> Thomas Sachau posted on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:29:25 +0200 as excerpted:
> > Michael Haubenwallner schrieb:
> >> Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system be
> >> compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system?
> >>
> >> Plea
Thomas Sachau posted on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:29:25 +0200 as excerpted:
> Michael Haubenwallner schrieb:
>> Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system be
>> compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system?
>>
>> Please comment, thank you!
>> /haubi/
>
> If you have a 64bit s
Michael Haubenwallner schrieb:
> Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system
> be compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system?
>
> Please comment, thank you!
> /haubi/
If you have a 64bit system, the default should be 64bit, both for libs and for
binaries. The
additiona
On 10/20/2009 04:06 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Isn't the intention of multilib to have a new (64bit) system
be compatible with the corresponding old (32bit) system?
I'm not sure I understand the whole procedure you use to build this app.
Why not simply use -m32 when building it? Why b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Recently, virtualx.eclass changed how it adds dependencies. Previously,
it always added IUSE=X, and added "X? ( x11-base/xorg-server
x11-apps/xhost )" to both DEPEND and RDEPEND (the RDEPEND part appears
to have been unintentional). This has been cha
Hi devs,
while there is the appreciated multiple ABI portage support going on,
a thought on the intentions of the multilib profiles.
Some background:
I do have to support building an older, but still maintained large
application software, that simply does not work when built as 64bit.
As it does
12 matches
Mail list logo
