1 |
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500 |
3 |
> Homer Parker <hparker@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > And what did Gentoo get out of it? |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing |
7 |
> > > things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of |
8 |
> > > those changes were or why they were done. |
9 |
|
10 |
In the beginning there was a method... |
11 |
|
12 |
> The end result is that |
13 |
> > > there's still a random smattering of multilib-related mess |
14 |
> > > cluttering up ebuild internals that doesn't actually do anything |
15 |
> > > except cause intermittent breakages. Doing experiments is great as |
16 |
> > > a way of understanding the problem, but it isn't how you deliver a |
17 |
> > > solution. That takes a lot more work, and someone has to be |
18 |
> > > prepared to do it. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > The hell? Other distos where still thinking of how to |
21 |
> > implement multilib and we had it. I know first hand as I trashed a |
22 |
> > system trying out the latest-n-greatest.. And the next round fixed |
23 |
> > it. The -emul packages from then on along with the multilib profiles |
24 |
> > have worked fine. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> ...so why are people running around demanding that reinventing multilib |
27 |
> is the number one priority and has to be in EAPI 5 immediately then? I |
28 |
> was under the impression that your fellow developers don't consider the |
29 |
> -emul packages to be an adequate solution. If that isn't the case, and |
30 |
> the existing mechanism is in fact fine as you claim, then great, we can |
31 |
> ignore multilib from an EAPI perspective. |
32 |
|
33 |
And now it needs revamped.. I see no problem with re-investigating the |
34 |
problem to make it better/easier/whatever. |
35 |
|
36 |
> I can only go on what your colleagues are claiming here. I suggest if |
37 |
> you're upset at the suggestion that Gentoo doesn't have a decent |
38 |
> multilib implementation then you take it up with all the people who are |
39 |
> demanding the PMS team provide them with one. |
40 |
> |
41 |
|
42 |
I can only suggest you keep track of your train of thought.. In the |
43 |
beginning vs now are two completely separate issues. We were first, is |
44 |
it surprising the method needs looked at? No. |