Mike Frysinger wrote:
glanced in the ebuilds and they dont look too bad to me ... this is how we do
avr after all ... we punted the avr gcc/binutils ebuilds and now people have
to `emerge crossdev && crossdev avr`
Ok, many thanks Mike for the input.
I guess I better get on with it!
Stefan
On Thursday 13 October 2005 08:16 pm, Stefan Jones wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >On Thursday 13 October 2005 12:25 pm, Stefan Jones wrote:
> >>dev-util/xmingw-binutils dev-util/xmingw-runtime
> >>dev-util/xmingw-gcc dev-util/xmingw-w32api
> >
> >i'd prefer to see these moved into the nor
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 13 October 2005 12:25 pm, Stefan Jones wrote:
dev-util/xmingw-binutils dev-util/xmingw-runtime
dev-util/xmingw-gcc dev-util/xmingw-w32api
i'd prefer to see these moved into the normal binutils/gcc ebuilds myself
I do not think that would ev
On Thursday 13 October 2005 12:25 pm, Stefan Jones wrote:
> dev-util/xmingw-binutils dev-util/xmingw-runtime
> dev-util/xmingw-gcc dev-util/xmingw-w32api
i'd prefer to see these moved into the normal binutils/gcc ebuilds myself
> But every so often people submit ebuild for other libraries
Just a few opinions from the outside looking in...
On Thursday 13 October 2005 12:25 pm, Stefan Jones wrote:
> I am just wondering about people's option about making a new category,
> called something like dev-xmingw or similar.
Wouldn't set a precident for dev-gcc, dev-icc, dev-[enter alternate
Hi all,
I am just wondering about people's option about making a new category,
called something like dev-xmingw or similar.
At the moment we have in portage:
dev-util/xmingw-binutils dev-util/xmingw-runtime
dev-util/xmingw-gcc dev-util/xmingw-w32api
Which gives a usable W32 toolchain
