Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: toolchain-r1.eclass
On 22:30 Thu 25 Jul , Ryan Hill wrote: I don't think we will be moving to 5 very soon. I have nothing against it but Mike might be a harder sell. I want USE deps so I'm going to do 2 at least, then get the prefix guys on board for 3. The council deprecated 1/2 in April so I'd avoid those. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux http://dberkholz.com Analyst, RedMonk http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/ pgpk8YyXSSTTY.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: toolchain-r1.eclass
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:26:48 -0700 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: About one month ago I've filed https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474358 about modernizing toolchain.eclass by creating new toolchain-r1.eclass and migrating ebuilds using it to the new eclass. Please see attachments and review the code. One issue has already been raised, and it's prefix-related changes. I don't know what to change there, but I'm happy to test suggested changes. Then there is a question whether toolchain packages should use EAPI 5, and I think providing an upgrade path is a good concern. Given portage/python constraints though, it seems to me it would be fine. If you think it'd be better, I could use a lower EAPI just in case. All feedback is welcome. I meant to work on this last week but got distracted. I have a bunch of build changes testing locally but need to make some cross compilers. I don't think we will be moving to 5 very soon. I have nothing against it but Mike might be a harder sell. I want USE deps so I'm going to do 2 at least, then get the prefix guys on board for 3. Like I said on the bug I don't think we want to do a new eclass (or if we did I would make a toolchain-next for masked versions and backport stuff). -- Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: toolchain-r1.eclass
El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 22:30 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:26:48 -0700 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: About one month ago I've filed https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474358 about modernizing toolchain.eclass by creating new toolchain-r1.eclass and migrating ebuilds using it to the new eclass. Please see attachments and review the code. One issue has already been raised, and it's prefix-related changes. I don't know what to change there, but I'm happy to test suggested changes. Then there is a question whether toolchain packages should use EAPI 5, and I think providing an upgrade path is a good concern. Given portage/python constraints though, it seems to me it would be fine. If you think it'd be better, I could use a lower EAPI just in case. All feedback is welcome. I meant to work on this last week but got distracted. I have a bunch of build changes testing locally but need to make some cross compilers. I don't think we will be moving to 5 very soon. I have nothing against it but Mike might be a harder sell. I want USE deps so I'm going to do 2 at least, then get the prefix guys on board for 3. Like I said on the bug I don't think we want to do a new eclass (or if we did I would make a toolchain-next for masked versions and backport stuff). Last time I talked with him, Mike was ok with eapi4 for base-system packages, but no idea if toolchain will have a special treatment. Better wait for him to reply here :/
