From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi  Sun May 16 08:48:57 2010
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [MiNT] [PATCH] gcc, disable no-multilib directory if multilib 
 switch given
From: Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>
To: Miro Kropacek <miro.kropacek@gmail.com>
Cc: Vincent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rivi=E8re?= <vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr>,
        mint@lists.fishpool.fi
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikf8COQRNNCA1lLS5ibGX8bN7rG-uKU6J4UN-HZ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100515231404.2aec895f.mandin.patrice@orange.fr>
	 <4BEF136B.2020702@freesbee.fr>
	 <1273960199.8894.162.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk>
	 <4BEF1814.2040001@freesbee.fr>
	 <1273994536.8894.171.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk>
	 <4BEFC045.8070509@freesbee.fr>
	 <AANLkTikMEA1QQPZwF7MIF8y13MCBVx-QvmAhmJhCNU2A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4BEFCACE.9050706@freesbee.fr>
	 <AANLkTikf8COQRNNCA1lLS5ibGX8bN7rG-uKU6J4UN-HZ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:47:28 +0100
Message-ID: <1274014048.8894.173.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
X-original-sender: alanh@fairlite.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-List-ID: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>

On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 12:44 +0200, Miro Kropacek wrote:
> > Finally, to protect any library against bad links, we just have to recompile
> > it multiple times with the new installation scheme.
> >
> > At the beginning /usr/lib will contain old libraries, then when all the
> > libraries are rebuilt in the new way, it will be become empty.
> >
> > This is a progressive solution.
> Well, the same progressive solution then would be to recompile every
> library for 000 and 020+ :) This doesn't solve Patrice's problem --
> libraries will be still badly linked with 020+. That's the reason why
> I think Patrice's patch is ok -- if you want default behavior (68000),
> nothing changed. If you want "advanced" stuff (68020), you must take
> care you have all libraries. To me this seems the best solution. And
> if someone still wants to use 000 library with 020+ code... well, he
> can always make a symlink to /usr/lib but on his own risk.

I don't like the m68000 solution either.

In Gentoo if your CFLAGS are -m68020-60 then everything in /usr/lib will
be 020+ optimized and there will be no subdirectories.

Alan.