On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 03:30 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500 > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 20:26 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 20:19, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > > From my POV those vars should be set in the profiles instead, and > > > > a quick scan shows that indeed most (maybe all? didn't count them) > > > > profiles set them already, so there isn't really a point in > > > > having them in make.conf too, except to make it easy for users to > > > > change them > > > Little note: with Gentoo/FreeBSD I tried avoiding providing CHOST > > > in make.conf, as to change to non-i686 CHOST you need to rebuild > > > everything, as the stage is currently i686-centric, I'm sorry of > > > that, I'll try to automatize a more complete building when I'll > > > have time. > > > > > > The problem of this is that distcc-config looks inside make.conf > > > for CHOST instead of using portageq envvar CHOST, so it just > > > breaks :P I think other things might do the same assumption of > > > finding CHOST in make.conf, and beside being plainly wrong, I'm not > > > sure if I want to break everything ;) > > > > CHOST doesn't have to match what is in the profile. In fact, I can > > think of a lot of cases where it does not. While I agree that it > > shouldn't be required to have CHOST in make.conf, it *is* currently a > > requirement, and has been for as long as I can remember. > > The portageq way would scan all make.* files, so you *could* still set > CHOST in make.conf if you want to.
I wasn't disputing that. I was only stating that currently, there are things that *require* CHOST in make.conf that would need to be adjusted. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
