On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:36 -0400, Olivier Crete wrote: > On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 19:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:11 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > | > Untrue. > > | > > | Can I have reasoning? > > > > Take a look at how sparc and mips currently handle packages which will > > run on some CPU kinds or ABIs but not others. > > Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of > change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs... >
No, Yes, and Yes. > I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64 > users or developers? > Well, I guess the theory might be because then you only have one keyword and one base profile to manage - I think. --- From a quick diff, it looks like they are handled via the ABI and PROFILE_ARCH stuff, but what your average sparc/mips dev do not realise, is that most x86 devs, and probably many amd64 devs have no idea what and how the ABI stuff is used. Mostly the ABI stuff was hacked by (and still is mostly if I'm not mistaken) by Jeremy, and they mostly just use ARCH or use to apply x86/amd64 patches. So your basic problem is that: 1) They have no idea how sparc/mips does it 2) They do not see any benefits 3) They get even more confused by the half assed answers they get. So to be frank, I propose that either the alt-arch devs start explaining above instead of half-assed answers and senseless ranting, or shut up. From the amount of _usefull_ comments they have given, it does not look like its really an issue or priority for them besides having some fun. Thanks, -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
