Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:58:45
Message-Id: 20120620215404.2497aa28@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 by Richard Yao
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> > > wrote: > >> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a > >> great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not want to > >> upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE and glibc because > >> I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco on my systems. This > >> situation would have been avoided entirely if the package manager > >> supported multilib. > > > > This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put in > > the work. > > The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric description of it.
> > So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and > > can't easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept > > having to rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the > > dep. > > Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal > with the package managers.
Why? It's highly doubtful the package manglers could switch shells even if they wanted to, and even if every ebuild started using EAPI 5. It's wasted effort. - -- Ciaran McCreesh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/iOG8ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG5FgCgw3V9qz3o1d0A4TUw5y83lfCE LWkAnRbY4WKJz1xribnhUat0YL1XEwHR =dYt+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>