Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:20:31
Message-Id: 1340258936.2470.5.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 by Justin
El mié, 20-06-2012 a las 23:43 +0200, Justin escribió:
> On 20.06.2012 22:35, 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. > > Tommy worked a lot on this and he asked for help to bring his > proposal/spec/glep into shape. > We are all aware what this is all about and know that anybody who is > using multilib would benefit. > Can't you simply work with him together to get it into what you expect > it to be instead of pointing out that it isn't? >
Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago, you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and more work to delay things to be implemented. I also don't understand why Gentoo is forced to stick with old ways of doing things until new EAPI is approved while Exherbo is free to implement and use things like that special way of handling DEPENDENCIES without waiting for any EAPI to be accepted... or maybe I am wrong and people is able to use any PM manager compliant with EAPI on exherbo without issues?

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>