| 1 |
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:46:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >> Beside that, it seems to solve things pretty similar to the |
| 5 |
> >> proposed way in multilib-portage for cross-compiling (which could |
| 6 |
> >> also be adapted for multi-slot languages) with different wording |
| 7 |
> >> and with additional work for ebuild maintainers. And since my |
| 8 |
> >> proposal already uses USE flags, things would not change visually |
| 9 |
> >> for users of e.g. ruby or php. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > I'm sad you aren't even trying to listen. Your attempt implies that |
| 12 |
> > every single change in targets requires rebuilding all of them. If I |
| 13 |
> > weren't using 32-bit libs, and now I want to compile 32-bit wine, I |
| 14 |
> > have to recompile most of my libraries for both ABIs. That is |
| 15 |
> > a no go for me. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> So you want to build a 32bit package, which is depending on 32bit |
| 18 |
> libs, but want to do that without the needed dependencies? Please |
| 19 |
> tell me, how that works. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm trying to build a 32bit package and its 32bit dependencies. Your |
| 22 |
solution involves building a 32bit package and rebuilding all 64bit |
| 23 |
packages which happen to be its dependencies for no reason. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > And adjusting that for other multi-slot languages is pointless. |
| 26 |
> > Because they do the same already. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> So you dont like one framework for all multi-slot languages and prefer |
| 29 |
> having each one using their own solution? Or do you just dislike my |
| 30 |
> idea for them and want to use your own suggestion for them? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm just saying that your framework doesn't change anything for user; |
| 33 |
it just involves some work to change the label. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives