| 1 |
Am Saturday 04 April 2009 14:59:22 schrieb Thomas Sachau: |
| 2 |
> Hi folks, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> i would like to hear about other opinions about real multilib support |
| 6 |
> within our tree and package managers. From what i know, there are mainly 2 |
| 7 |
> different ideas: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 1. Do the main stuff in the package manager (e.g. if the ARCH is amd64 and |
| 10 |
> the package has x86 keyword, the package manager adds a lib32 useflag, |
| 11 |
> which would additionally install the 32bit variant of that package together |
| 12 |
> with the normal 64bit install). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> pro: -much lesser work for package maintainers |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> contra: -needs addition in PMS and support in the pms, which will need some |
| 17 |
> work on their side |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 2. Do the main stuff in the ebuilds themselves (e.g. an additional eclass |
| 20 |
> multilib-native.eclass, any ebuild with 32bit support would then need |
| 21 |
> adaption and of course inheriting that eclass) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> For reference, there are some users in #gentoo-multilib-overlay, which try |
| 24 |
> to implement this option in an git based overlay. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> the arguments are more or less the reverse of above: |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> pro: -no need for PMS/PM support |
| 29 |
> -could be started and improved at any time |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> contra: -needs much additional work since many ebuilds need to be changed |
| 32 |
> and adapted |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Which option do you prefer? Or does anyone have another option? Which |
| 36 |
> additional arguments are there for those options? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If it's feasible, I'd say go with option #1 as it would impose much less work |
| 39 |
in longer terms. |
Archives