On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:36AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 01/08/14 05:05 AM, Steven J. Long wrote: > > I don't know why we can't just mask cross-*/whatever in the > > multilib profile, instead of more talk of "masking crossdev" with a > > heavy heart. > > > > Nor do know if that's been done already, as I just found that the > > profiles directory Changelog stopped in 2013, for some reason, and > > I don't have time to chase the files right now. > > > > Sorry for delay, been away and then busy. I was hoping to read > > something more than "mask crossdev" yet again, when I got back. > > > Back to the comment on masking -- would a cross-emerge (which i think > uses the target's profile, right?) end up p.masking its own toolchain?
No. The cross-* part is an overlay on CBUILD (ie the machine building the software; for a native build this is the same as CHOST in make.conf.) > I agree that masks should be minimized, at most > masking the conflicting cross-* packages in a profile. However if > this causes issues within cross-emerge too, then perhaps adjusting the > crossdev tool to warn or error would suffice when a target that will > conflict with the native toolchain is requested. Well that should happen too: it's a trivial patch, which again has already been discussed in #-embedded. Either vapier gets on and does it now he's back, or someone else will, for an arch they care about. I can't see him caring if it's correct; and after all the mask on the "overlay" itself (which is on CBUILD, remember) is only possible due to the separation inherent in the crossdev design. Nowadays people like to call that "belt'n'braces" or something. When I learnt to code it was called "common-sense." Discussing it wouldn't even arise: it goes without saying. Regards, igli. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
