mantle: Rework various bits to use new RpmArch() API #1258
Conversation
|
Depends #1257 |
arithx
left a comment
arithx
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems sane enough. Might still be worthwhile to split out the switching to system.RpmArch & the dropping of board into separate commits so it's easier to push back in later if we decide we care about cross-compiling or running virtual on different architectures.
Fedora/RHEL are *defined* to be self hosting; which means cross compliation is not at all the default. See also https://blog.verbum.org/2012/10/13/building-everything-from-source-vs-self-hosting/ The mantle code was just using Portage architecture because of CL; unifying on the RPM architecture names as are already used by cosa will help consolidate things. Further, we don't need to pass a "Board" all the way down the stack; since we don't support cross compliation there's no reason not to just call the new global API to get it.
Not entirely opposed but that's fairly tedious work, and given the rate of change here, it's highly unlikey that "reintroduce board parameter" would be anything close to Rebased 🏄♂️ |
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: arithx, cgwalters, jlebon The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
5 participants
Fedora/RHEL are defined to be self hosting; which means
cross compliation is not at all the default. See also
https://blog.verbum.org/2012/10/13/building-everything-from-source-vs-self-hosting/
The mantle code was just using Portage architecture because
of CL; unifying on the RPM architecture names as are already used
by cosa will help consolidate things.
Further, we don't need to pass a "Board" all the way down
the stack; since we don't support cross compliation there's no
reason not to just call the new global API to get it.