On Friday, September 16, 2011 06:06:35 PM Duncan wrote:
> Joost Roeleveld posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:36:27 +0200 as excerpted:
> > I agree, I just used this example to explain that it shouldn't be
> > necessary to force an initramfs on all users just because there is a
> > small group who wants
Markos Chandras posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:25:07 +0300 as excerpted:
>> that would be ideal, and drop "amd64" in the process: x86/x86_64/
>> -mike
>
> Ok so we will probably have the following multilib options
>
> * x86(ABI=x86_32{/lib}) + amd64(ABI=x86_64{lib64/}) +
> x32(ABI=x32{/libx32})
Hi,
> Thanks Matt!
Thanks, too! :) I've used MIPS before, and might set up an old octane
again...so thanks for your effort! :)
Greetings,
Craig
On 09/15/2011 05:20 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2011-09-16 01:54:44 Brian Harring napisał(a):
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:21:55AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
>> Arahesis wrote:
>>> 2011-09-15 09:55:08 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 07:30:14AM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 02:06 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > Specious argument; the point of controllable stacking was to avoid the
> > issue of overlay's forcing their eclasses upon gentoo-x86 ebuilds
> > (which may not support those modif
On Friday, September 16, 2011 15:09:52 Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2011 04:28:24 Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> >> Is a x86/amd64/x32 multilib profile just going to provide toolchain
> >> support for x32 binaries (like x86 in a x86/amd64 multilib profile
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 04:28:24 Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
>> Is a x86/amd64/x32 multilib profile just going to provide toolchain
>> support for x32 binaries (like x86 in a x86/amd64 multilib profile), or
>> do we want a 'full' x32 profile, where every package is bui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/16/11 20:32, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:06:25 Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
>>> On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frys
On Friday, September 16, 2011 01:46:49 Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:43 -0400 as excerpted:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 17:03:07 Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:0
On 09/16/2011 06:06 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> > On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger
> >> wrote:
> >>
> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because
> x86_32 x86_64
Joost Roeleveld posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:36:27 +0200 as excerpted:
> I agree, I just used this example to explain that it shouldn't be
> necessary to force an initramfs on all users just because there is a
> small group who wants to have an extreme setup.
Careful with the "extreme". As you
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>> On 11:36 Fri 16 Sep , Michał Górny wrote:
>> > The question is: where to store such a directory list?
>> >
>> > Keeping it inside project sources doesn't seem right as it wo
On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:06:25 Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> > On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because
> x86_32 x86
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>> > Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the
>> > way, lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll
>> > dredge up the old logs/complaints th
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:42:59 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:14:28 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > I don't want this in my repo.
> >
> > By *your* repo you mean dev overlay? Noone forces you to declare
> > add
On Friday, September 16, 2011 12:01:43 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:06:07 Michał Górny wrote:
> > But doesn't switching mean we're going to hit LFS PITA once again?
>
> LFS hasnt really been a pain in a long while. but it's something worth
> raising on the x32 lists (w
On Friday, September 16, 2011 04:28:24 Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> Is a x86/amd64/x32 multilib profile just going to provide toolchain
> support for x32 binaries (like x86 in a x86/amd64 multilib profile), or
> do we want a 'full' x32 profile, where every package is built by default
> as x32 code?
On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:06:07 Michał Górny wrote:
> But doesn't switching mean we're going to hit LFS PITA once again?
LFS hasnt really been a pain in a long while. but it's something worth
raising on the x32 lists (which i'll do) since x32 has native 64bit support
(uint64_t == %rax).
On Friday, September 16, 2011 09:36:32 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> understanding is that it probably makes sense to switch to x32 no matter
> what you're using now (x86 or amd64).
x32 needs a 64bit processor, so x86 cant go away as it's the only ABI that can
run on 32bit processors
but for 64bit pr
On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:14:28 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > I don't want this in my repo.
>
> By *your* repo you mean dev overlay? Noone forces you to declare
> additional paths.
i think he meant maintaining masks for pkgs in his repo
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:39:48 -0500
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 11:36 Fri 16 Sep , Michał Górny wrote:
> > The question is: where to store such a directory list?
> >
> > Keeping it inside project sources doesn't seem right as it would
> > require me to bump and re-release project every time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/16/11 10:58, Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400 Mike Frysinger
>> wrote:
>>
PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because
x86_32 x86_64 x86_x32 are
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:36:32 -0500
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 15:34 Thu 15 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs.
> > but i can see how some people wont want all three all the time. so
> > the question is how we want to make this ava
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the
> > way, lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll
> > dredge up the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI.
>
> I see EAPI as a nice thing for standardi
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> It may be that this is already sorted on the gnome side, or that all this
> talk of gnome-os is simply hot-air, but like I said, I'm a kde user, so I
> wouldn't know, tho I'm concerned about its implications for the rest of
>
On 21:53 Tue 13 Sep , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > 2011/9/13 Michał Górny :
> >> ---
> >> eclass/autotools-utils.eclass | 2 +-
> >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > I don't think sending 9 patches is very use
On 11:36 Fri 16 Sep , Michał Górny wrote:
> The question is: where to store such a directory list?
>
> Keeping it inside project sources doesn't seem right as it would
> require me to bump and re-release project every time a directory is
> added. Keeping it in separate package which would ne
On 15:34 Thu 15 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs. but i can
> see how some people wont want all three all the time. so the question is how
> we want to make this available to users at the release/profile level.
>
> background: x3
On 02:06 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> Specious argument; the point of controllable stacking was to avoid the
> issue of overlay's forcing their eclasses upon gentoo-x86 ebuilds
> (which may not support those modified eclasses) via the old
> PORTDIR_OVERLAY behaviour. This is why mult
Hello,
I'm working on a tiny project called install-mask[1] which is
supposedly a simple tool to enable/disable INSTALL_MASK.
One of its features would be a common list of named locations where
users may really want to consider INSTALL_MASK-ing; in a way similar to
USE flags (or even instead of r
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:08:36AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:54:47 +0200
> Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either
> > > by its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and
> > > because otherwise we
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:00:19PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkho
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:18:27 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > See below on the existing udev retry queue that is hiding many of
> > > the
> > > issues from you. This hidden issues are also negatively affecting
> > > boot
On 09/15/2011 10:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ive converted my system over to x86/amd64/x32 multilib for funs. but i can
> see how some people wont want all three all the time. so the question is how
> we want to make this available to users at the release/profile level.
>
> background: x32 i
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:54:47 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > This is a build-against dependency, and it's best expressed either
> > by its own BADEPEND, or (because it's apparently now possible, and
> > because otherwise we'd end up with six or seven *DEPEND variables)
> > by switching to something
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:58:01 +0300
Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >
> >>> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32
> >>> x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we
On 09/16/2011 10:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>> PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32
>>> x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have different
>>> keywords for different mips abis (64bit and 32bit o
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:35:55 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > PS why not merge all x86 abis into one keyword? because x86_32
> > x86_64 x86_x32 are only abis of x86. Also we dont have different
> > keywords for different mips abis (64bit and 32bit ones)
>
> that'd be nice :)
Seems even acceptabl
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:25:29 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:32:49 -0400
> Matt Turner wrote:
> > Often packages depending on X11 libraries will also have to specify
> > the X11 libraries' proto packages in DEPEND. This is because the X11
> > library itself #includes files
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:25:12AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I've found that dracut is pretty auto-magic by default and the config file
> > doesn't generally need tampering. Most of the options are to NOT load
> > modules or to minimize the initramfs size by figuring out what modules are
>
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 08:32:17 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Will the ebuild automatically add all the different modules into the
> > /etc/dracut.conf ?
> > Please note, I am asking these questions to put my mind at ease and
> > hope
41 matches
Mail list logo
