| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:35:40PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> I feel like this is getting out of control. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I'm just proposing an alternative approach. Feel free to ignore ;). |
| 5 |
Also, feel free to tell me to drop this issue for $x weeks until folks |
| 6 |
have some more free time ;). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> There seems to be this overwhelming desire to keep applying hack after |
| 9 |
> hack to make increasingly obscure -- and fundamentally unsupportable |
| 10 |
> -- configurations work. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I was trying to replace the existing hack (from e7ea409, and 6c0a577 |
| 13 |
through f6ad38) with a simpler, less obscure one. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Brian mentioned that he talked to Zac and that there was something |
| 16 |
> that portage should be doing differently about binary packages. Let's |
| 17 |
> please investigate that a bit further before pursuing other |
| 18 |
> strategies. I have confidence that if Zac understands and knows about |
| 19 |
> the problem that he can fix portage. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That sounds wonderful. My impression was that neither Portage nor the |
| 22 |
toolchain ebuilds were going to be changed to address this problem. |
| 23 |
The last I hear on the Portage front was (quoted in [1]): |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
10:33 < zmedico> dol-sen: wouldn't it be easier to just migrate |
| 26 |
those pkgs to EAPI 5 + slot-operator? |
| 27 |
10:34 * zmedico doesn't feel like doing extra work when EAPI 5 |
| 28 |
already does everything we need |
| 29 |
… |
| 30 |
11:16 < Tommy[D]_> Zero_Chaos: my suggestion: ask the toolchain guys |
| 31 |
about their preferred way (like updating existing eclass, |
| 32 |
using a new eclass, moving code into ebuilds) and when you |
| 33 |
got that, do the needed work, including an EAPI-5 version of |
| 34 |
toolchain ebuilds |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If Zac's changed his mind, I'd be happy to wait for the Portage bump |
| 37 |
that works around poorly specified ABI dependencies. However, note |
| 38 |
that even some EAPI-5 packages don't use ABI sub-slots to avoid this |
| 39 |
issue [2], so unless the Portage work-around deals with such ebuilds |
| 40 |
appropriately, we'll still need some sort of hack in catalyst. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Cheers, |
| 43 |
Trevor |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
[1]: http://mid.gmane.org/20130412162540.GB13054@××××××××××××.us |
| 46 |
[2]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454184#c18 |
| 47 |
(I'll work up the patches Zero_Chaos asks for in #c19 now, but I |
| 48 |
expect this is not an isolated event) |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 52 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives