| 1 |
On Sunday 11 October 2009 06:21:14 Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 2 |
> as announced in a previous mail, i created a fork of portage, which has |
| 3 |
> support to create 32bit libs during compile phase for 64bit platforms |
| 4 |
> (currently amd64 tested, ppc64 untested). |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In short, it does execute every src_* phase twice with keeping a workdir |
| 7 |
> for every ABI and saving some default environment vars (like *FLAGS). |
| 8 |
> Since the current ABI is the last one in this order, the 64bit phase will |
| 9 |
> overwrite everthing from 32bit phase except those parts, which have a |
| 10 |
> different install location, so mostly libs, which go in lib32 instead of |
| 11 |
> lib64. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> A current ebuild and docs for using it are currently in the |
| 14 |
> portage-multilib branch of the multilib overlay. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
your git instructions are overly complicated (doc/portage-multilib- |
| 17 |
instructions). your two checkouts and .git/config edit are one command: |
| 18 |
git checkout -b portage-multilib origin/portage-multilib |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
you really should line wrap that file too |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I asked zmedico about inclusion into the main svn tree of portage, but he |
| 23 |
> requested a council ok before he would be accepting it. So this is my |
| 24 |
> request for discussion and ok (in tomorrows or the following meeting) from |
| 25 |
> the council. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
getting review + approval in a day or two is pretty unreasonable, especially |
| 28 |
when info as to what is being changed/proposed isnt well documented. |
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives