List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:46:00 +0200
Thomas Sachau <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Beside that, it seems to solve things pretty similar to the
> >> proposed way in multilib-portage for cross-compiling (which could
> >> also be adapted for multi-slot languages) with different wording
> >> and with additional work for ebuild maintainers. And since my
> >> proposal already uses USE flags, things would not change visually
> >> for users of e.g. ruby or php.
> > I'm sad you aren't even trying to listen. Your attempt implies that
> > every single change in targets requires rebuilding all of them. If I
> > weren't using 32-bit libs, and now I want to compile 32-bit wine, I
> > have to recompile most of my libraries for both ABIs. That is
> > a no go for me.
> So you want to build a 32bit package, which is depending on 32bit
> libs, but want to do that without the needed dependencies? Please
> tell me, how that works.
I'm trying to build a 32bit package and its 32bit dependencies. Your
solution involves building a 32bit package and rebuilding all 64bit
packages which happen to be its dependencies for no reason.
> > And adjusting that for other multi-slot languages is pointless.
> > Because they do the same already.
> So you dont like one framework for all multi-slot languages and prefer
> having each one using their own solution? Or do you just dislike my
> idea for them and want to use your own suggestion for them?
I'm just saying that your framework doesn't change anything for user;
it just involves some work to change the label.