| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400
|
| 5 |
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> |
| 8 |
> > wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a |
| 10 |
> >> great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not want to |
| 11 |
> >> upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE and glibc because |
| 12 |
> >> I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco on my systems. This |
| 13 |
> >> situation would have been avoided entirely if the package manager |
| 14 |
> >> supported multilib. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put in |
| 17 |
> > the work. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The multilib-portage overlay already has this working. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric description of
|
| 22 |
it.
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and |
| 25 |
> > can't easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept |
| 26 |
> > having to rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the |
| 27 |
> > dep. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal |
| 30 |
> with the package managers. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Why? It's highly doubtful the package manglers could switch shells even
|
| 33 |
if they wanted to, and even if every ebuild started using EAPI 5. It's
|
| 34 |
wasted effort.
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
- --
|
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 38 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 39 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
iEYEARECAAYFAk/iOG8ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG5FgCgw3V9qz3o1d0A4TUw5y83lfCE
|
| 42 |
LWkAnRbY4WKJz1xribnhUat0YL1XEwHR
|
| 43 |
=dYt+
|
| 44 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives