Re: [gentoo-dev] MULTI_ABI support addition to main tree portage

[Nathan Phillip Brink]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I would like to know what is "blocking" this from landing main tree in
> the "near" future, as I reviewed:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg41737.html
>
> and looks like there wasn't major problems (at least commented in this
> thread)

There are still a number of known build failures, tracked in
https://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/portage-multilib . There are probably
many more portage-multilib-related build failures which haven't been
encountered yet nor reported. Also, even these reported bugs are not
necessarily fixed first because they only affect us the minority ;-).

Most everything is easy to debug and as simple as replacing calls to
$(LD) in poorly-written Makefileswith with calls to $(CC), fixing
packages which ignore CFLAGS (where we store our -m32) or LDFLAGS
(where we now also store -m32 since one's not allowed to require
buildsystems to call $(CC) with $(CFLAGS) when objects are being
linked into an executable or library).

However, packages which use qmake or cmake macros installed by KDE are
more difficult to debug and there are other funny issues such as
CFLAGS being stored by a library's buildsystem and stored into
/usr/share instead of an ABI-dependent directory, breaking packages
which use that library... ;-)

Also, there are still some decisions/changes to portage-multilib which
might be made The most recent idea discussed was: should ${ARCH}
useflags (like SRC_URI="x86? ( http://host/my-binari-x86.tar.bz2 )")
be replaced with ${ABI} useflags or should we rewrite a bunch of
ebuilds in the tree to be multilib-aware? For example:

Say we have
ABI=x86
ARCH=amd64

Does ``use x86'' return true or do we need to use ``use multilib_abi_x86''?
Do detect the true arch, do we need ``use arch_amd64'' or does ``use amd64'' still return true?

-- 
binki

Look out for missing apostrophes!