-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 09/17/2014 02:38 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 17/09/14 04:31 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Dnia 2014-09-13, o godz. 10:47:49 Markos Chandras
>> <[email protected]> napisał(a):
>
>>> Here is some weirdness with eg mips64/n32 multilib profile
>>> when trying a world update
>>>
>>> [ebuild U ] sys-devel/libtool-2.4.2-r1:2 [2.4.2:2]
>>> USE="-static-libs {-test} -vanilla" ABI_MIPS="(n32%*) o32%*
>>> -n64%" 0 kB
>>>
>>> As you can see n32 and o32 are enabled but n64 is not.
>>> Obviously this is not full mips64 multilib. This is probably
>>> due the portage profile stacking/inheritance problems on
>>> mips64, where the mips64/multilib profiles inherit the default
>>> o32 one. Michal (multilib CC'd) can provide more information on
>>> what exactly goes wrong since he understands the problem better
>>> than me. Michal also said that on amd64, the multilib profiles
>>> defaults to 64-bit only. I believe this contradicts with what
>>> someone expects from MIPS64 where all three ABIs need to be
>>> present *by default* unless you override the ABI_MIPS variable
>>> in make.conf. Correct?
>
>> Well, long story short we inherit from 'top-level' profile that
>> has some o32 settings inside. I believe that it could be saner
>> to move those from arch/mips/mips64 -> arch/mips/mips64/o32 (like
>> we have /n32 and /n64 there), so that instead of having to unset
>> them, we'd just have them set for the relevant real profiles.
>
>> However, I'm not sure if this doesn't come with some pitfalls.
>
>
> Blueness and I talked about this (proper n32 / n64 / o32 defaults
> and forces/masks) in #gentoo-dev two or three weeks ago; I thought
> we worked out the correct modifications to profiles to get it right
> and he had already pushed the fixes... ??
I can't see anything. Did you actually push them? What was decided as
the plan for action?
>
> Is it just a matter of documenting the full map of exactly what
> multilib profile should be forced-on and default-on in each, and
> then either adjusting profiles if they don't match up OR allowing
> users to select the correct profile for what they want?
>
> For example, i'm not understanding why n64 -should- be enabled by
> default on the mips64/n32 profile?? If you wanted more than
> {n,o}32 shouldn't you be choosing the base mips64 profile?
>
>
Perhaps it should not but neither should o32
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=
=wYWx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
