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.