On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:36:52 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | No offense intended, but as a user, I /like/ to actually know that a | package keyworded for my arch (segment) is known to work on it in full | (IMHO) uncrippled amd64 form, not in some (IMHO) "crippled 32-bit | special case". If we went the other way and removed x86 keywording | from everything that failed in 64-bit mode, including all 32-bit only | codecs and the like, x86(32) arch(segment) folks would rightly be | wailing in protest. | | Again, no offense intended, but unless you have some magic way to fix | that situation, perhaps the MIPS devs and users are willing to live | with that problem on MIPS, but neither x86(32) users nor amd64 users | (and by this I'm including devs, which are obviously users as well) | are interested in being saddled with an unnecessary problem, when the | current situation avoids it, or I expect the amd64 keyword would have | never been added.
It's not magic. We've been handling packages that work on sparc64 but not sparc32 for years with a single keyword. Just because you (and, from the looks of things, most of the x86 and amd64 developers) don't know about some of portage's features doesn't mean they don't exist :) -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgp0fUPxcW4oR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
