On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:13:46PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 09:14:06AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 05:23:23PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > > I'm looking at fixing #392592, and I'm wondering where > > > arch/$arch/scripts should go? ia64 has them (as does um). > > > > On ia64, the usage can be patched away, no need to carry them with > > us. > > hey Bastian, > Please explain what you mean by "can be patched away". > > Are you implying we should hardcode the results of these scripts? > I don't personally like that approach since it looks like we'd be > removing safety checks and adding assumptions about the toolchain. > I suppose we could setup dependencies for the headers package to > enforce a matching toolchain, but that sounds like a portability > regression. > > Of course, I don't think I've ever correctly guessed what you are > implying, so that's probably not it :)
hey Bastian, reping - can you expand on what you think I should do to fix this? -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
