(I'm resending this email as the original apparently did not make it
to the list, although Thomas probably received it)
Hi Thomas,
I'm replying to the original thread below to allow those who have
missed it to have the full context.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Thomas Sachau
On Thursday 22 October 2009 11:26:58 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:46:07 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
how do you control whether the multilib headers are needed ? it'll
probably make sense in general, but there are def some
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
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
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:46:07 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
another quick look at _setup_abi_env() looks like it needs work:
- LD should not default to `ld`
Whats your suggestion?
the majority of the time, the compiler driver (i.e. `gcc`) should
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 return
On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:46:07 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
another quick look at _setup_abi_env() looks like it needs work:
- LD should not default to `ld`
Whats your suggestion?
the majority of the time, the compiler driver (i.e. `gcc`) should be used for
linking.
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 return `ld` -- a few
packages
need it, but not most. if we're
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:26:37PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:49:09 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:50:23PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
what exactly does this lib32 do ? naming USE flags
On Monday 19 October 2009 17:02:50 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:26:37PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:49:09 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:50:23PM -0400, Mike Frysinger
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:02:50PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Is there any specific reason you're using the content of the
LIBDIR_${ABI} variable? Maybe using the $ABI string as the USE flag
would be better, in some form of USE_EXPAND manner (cannot use them raw
as I believe we still have
On Monday 19 October 2009 18:53:10 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:02:50PM +0200, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Is there any specific reason you're using the content of the
LIBDIR_${ABI} variable? Maybe using the $ABI string as the USE flag
would be better, in some form of
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
another quick look at _setup_abi_env() looks like it needs work:
- LD should not default to `ld`
Whats your suggestion?
- the -L paths to system dirs in LDFLAGS should not be there -- the
toolchain
can handle these just fine
Last time i tried without, some
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:50:23PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
what exactly does this lib32 do ? naming USE flags according to specific
ABI implementations is a bad idea. you have to forget special casing
anything
to lib32 vs lib64. amd64, while the most
On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:49:09 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:50:23PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
what exactly does this lib32 do ? naming USE flags according to
specific ABI implementations is a bad idea. you have to forget special
casing
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:26:37PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 18 October 2009 14:49:09 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:50:23PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
what exactly does this lib32 do ? naming USE flags according to
specific
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
the abi-wrapper doesnt look terribly appealing. why dont we use
broken/custom
-config handling as incentive to convert packages to .pc files. pkg-config
handles ABI/cross-compile splitting cleanly and transparently.
I
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:50:23PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
what exactly does this lib32 do ? naming USE flags according to specific
ABI implementations is a bad idea. you have to forget special casing
anything
to lib32 vs lib64. amd64, while the most common, is hardly extensible.
On Sunday 16 August 2009 08:37:37 Thomas Sachau wrote:
-for the portage version: It is also in the multilib overlay, but in a
different branch called portage-multilib. To use this, you should read the
instructions at [1] (doc/portage-multilib-instructions). This one should
also mainly work,
Let me introduce a nice project, which was started by some users:
Since the emul-linux-x86-* packages for 32bit libs for amd64 users are neither
easy to maintain nor
up-to-date, some users started to implement an eclass, which allows to build
requested libs with
additional 32bit support. Later
On Sunday 16 August 2009, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Let me introduce a nice project, which was started by some users:
Since the emul-linux-x86-* packages for 32bit libs for amd64 users are
neither easy to maintain nor up-to-date, some users started to implement an
eclass, which allows to build
20 matches
Mail list logo
