1 |
> With 2005.1, I'm expecting FEATURES=multilib-strict will be the default, |
2 |
> to finally weed out as many of the few remaining back packages as |
3 |
> possible. |
4 |
|
5 |
I don't suspect that will be "default" as I'd rather not burden users |
6 |
with those problems that should be caught by developers. Before we make |
7 |
the switch to eliminating the symlink for good, we'll need to QA every |
8 |
amd64 marked package to make sure it doesn't break under |
9 |
multilib-strict... I'm not looking forward to that, but hopefully we'll |
10 |
be able to break up the burden among the devs, ATs and community. |
11 |
|
12 |
> With 2006.0, it's possible that lib -> lib64 symlink can |
13 |
> finally be broken, and any remaining packages then WILL get bugs filed, |
14 |
> when someone tries to use them and has issues. |
15 |
|
16 |
You can actually do that now with the 2005.0/no-symlinks profile, but I |
17 |
haven't done much QA on it yet, but PLEASE file bugs that you come |
18 |
across with it. |
19 |
|
20 |
> With luck, by 2006.1, it |
21 |
> should be safe to start doing basically the same thing with the lib32 -> |
22 |
> lib move, as we will have just got thru doing with the lib -> lib64 move. |
23 |
|
24 |
Again, 2005.0/no-symlinks/no-lib32 profile... uh... don't expect this |
25 |
one to work though ;) BUG reports welcome... also developer muscle |
26 |
welcome. I want to get gcc-config 2.0 done first (see my blog). |
27 |
|
28 |
> First, there will be a symlink between the two, in another release or two, |
29 |
> the main packages will be changed and it'll be time to activate the |
30 |
> multilib-strict test for anything still ending up in lib32 instead of lib. |
31 |
> By 2007.0, therefore, if luck holds, that multilib-strict test can be the |
32 |
> default, to catch all the stragglers possible, and 2007.1 should then |
33 |
> hopefully be able to remove lib32, relegating it to the annuls of |
34 |
> Gentoo-amd64 history. (Those .1 mentions assume that Gentoo continues |
35 |
> with the twice-yearly releases, thus, they mean second-half.) |
36 |
|
37 |
So yeah, in like many years down the road, this should all be worked out |
38 |
assuming I get off my ass and get things rolling... |
39 |
|
40 |
> However, that's really only half the issue. The other half is portage, |
41 |
> which currently can't track 32-bit dependencies separate from its 64-bit |
42 |
> dependencies. We had hoped that portage would have dual-bitness support |
43 |
> by 2005.1, but that's now looking impossible, |
44 |
|
45 |
Uhm... yeah... did I mention that I don't like python... so that means |
46 |
this probably won't happen soon or quickly unless someone else steps up |
47 |
to the task to help out (or someone convinces me to enjoy python)... |
48 |
the design is pretty much there, but it's not gonna get implemented by |
49 |
me alone. If anyone is interested in helping out with this project, |
50 |
this is a great opportunity to contribute a much needed feature. |
51 |
|
52 |
> Thus, it'll be 2006.0 at the earliest, before portage |
53 |
> will be able to handle dual-bitness tracking, keeping the 32-bit |
54 |
> dependencies separate from the 64-bit dependencies. |
55 |
|
56 |
And that's very optimistic. |
57 |
|
58 |
--Jeremy |