[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: method of checking for cross compilation from ebuild functions
From:       Luca Barbato <lu_zero () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2012-09-22 15:16:24
Message-ID: 505DD648.8030401 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 09/21/2012 06:06 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/20/2012 10:34 AM, Ambroz Bizjak wrote:
>> The question now is, how should this method for checking
>> --crosscompile be implemented? In particular, we have two options:
>>
>> - Environment variable. If so, how to call it? Possible names are
>> CROSSCOMPILE, GENTOO_CROSSCOMPILE, PORTAGE_CROSSCOMPILE,
>> ECROSSCOMPILE... For more generic names (CROSSCOMPILE) it needs to be
>> taken into account that they may inadvertently affect packages.
>> However environment vars have the benefit that it's easy to pass them
>> through programs and scripts.
>>
>> - Internal function, similar to "use". Probably "is_crosscompile".
>> This may look nicer and reduces the risk of collisions.
> 
> Since it's just a boolean flag, we could have a special "crosscompile"
> USE flag for this, so that the use() function could be used like we
> currently use it for the "test" USE flag. The flag would be forced on or
> off based on your configuration, similar to the "test" flag [1], so
> there wouldn't be any danger of the flag being accidentally enabled or
> disabled. The flag could be bound to FEATURES=crosscompile, or some
> other package manager configuration variable. Note that if we add a
> --crosscompile option to emerge, then we'll also have to add it to the
> ebuid(1) command, so maybe it's better to forgo the commandline option
> and just toggle it with a configuration variable like
> FEATURES=crosscompile. Also, it's conceivable that you could drop the
> CROSS_HDEPEND variable, in favor of HDEPEND="crosscompile? ( foo )"
> syntax (somewhat in alignment with Brian Harring's DEPENDENCIES proposal).
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373209
> 


I like the idea.

lu

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]