[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <embfd59b10-ed77-469d-8363-5c04fd07d9a9@elzian>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 08:40:47 +0000
From: "Laurent Bercot" <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [musl-cross-make] [PATCH v2] litecross: Fix system header dir
when building native toolchains
>> Relocatability and
>> self-containedness are where it's at.
>
>Would you be happy with TARGET=HOST=... giving this behavior while
>NATIVE=y additionally gives a real native compiler (that uses the
>existing library ecosystem)? Or should I make a new name for the
>latter?
I personally wouldn't mind, but I at least have used musl-cross-make
in tooling in places I don't work at anymore, and chances are the new
maintainers are not toolchain experts - so incompatible changes would
make upgrading more difficult for them.
It's a question of terminology, mostly. I always assumed "native" meant
"target=host"; you seem to be saying that it really means
"non-sysrooted",
which I would rather call "non-sysrooted" or "system compiler". And I
think most people understand "native" the same way as I do, as the
opposite of "cross". So, for maximum clarity, I think it would be wiser
to use another name when you mean "native and non-sysrooted compiler".
--
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
