Quite honestly I see this as providing no advantage what so ever over the current USE="mmx blah foo" that we already have..
Please explain to me what I'm missing here.. How does this help us? On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:20 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal: > > I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. > This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, > it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be > CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2" > > I'm no quite sure, but i assume ppc/ppc32 should leave CPUFLAGS empty, > and ppc/ppc64 should set > CPUFLAGS="altivec". > > > The main reasons for a USE-like implementation om contrast to Diego's > proposal are: > > a) There is no call to gcc involved, but only a call to use(). This > allows usage in metadata phase. > b) There is no implicit (non-transparent) choice made for the users. > c) It doesn't mix CFLAGS' purpose (which has a meaning beyond Gentoo) > with the purpose of optional codepaths. > > I know, there aren't use-based deps in portage yet, but I really feel > uncomfortable to be unable to use cpuflags in metadata phase. This is > what worries me most. > > Danny > -- > Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
