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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: toolchain-r1.eclass
From:       Pacho Ramos <pacho () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2013-07-26 4:58:57
Message-ID: 1374814737.1207.1.camel () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]

El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 22:30 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:26:48 -0700
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > About one month ago I've filed
> > <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474358> about modernizing
> > toolchain.eclass by creating new toolchain-r1.eclass and migrating
> > ebuilds using it to the new eclass.
> > 
> > Please see attachments and review the code.
> > 
> > One issue has already been raised, and it's prefix-related changes. I
> > don't know what to change there, but I'm happy to test suggested changes.
> > 
> > Then there is a question whether toolchain packages should use EAPI 5,
> > and I think providing an upgrade path is a good concern. Given
> > portage/python constraints though, it seems to me it would be fine. If
> > you think it'd be better, I could use a lower EAPI just in case.
> > 
> > All feedback is welcome.
> 
> I meant to work on this last week but got distracted.  I have a bunch of
> build changes testing locally but need to make some cross compilers.
> 
> I don't think we will be moving to 5 very soon.  I have nothing against it but
> Mike might be a harder sell.  I want USE deps so I'm going to do 2 at least,
> then get the prefix guys on board for 3.
> 
> Like I said on the bug I don't think we want to do a new eclass (or if we did I
> would make a toolchain-next for masked versions and backport stuff).
> 
> 

Last time I talked with him, Mike was ok with eapi4 for base-system
packages, but no idea if toolchain will have a special treatment. Better
wait for him to reply here :/


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