Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Homer Parker <hparker@g.o>
Subject: Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:26:49 -0500
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500
> Homer Parker <hparker@g.o> wrote:
> > > And what did Gentoo get out of it?
> > > 
> > > What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing
> > > things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of
> > > those changes were or why they were done. 

	In the beginning there was a method...

> The end result is that
> > > there's still a random smattering of multilib-related mess
> > > cluttering up ebuild internals that doesn't actually do anything
> > > except cause intermittent breakages. Doing experiments is great as
> > > a way of understanding the problem, but it isn't how you deliver a
> > > solution. That takes a lot more work, and someone has to be
> > > prepared to do it.
> > 
> > 	The hell? Other distos where still thinking of how to
> > implement multilib and we had it. I know first hand as I trashed a
> > system trying out the latest-n-greatest.. And the next round fixed
> > it. The -emul packages from then on along with the multilib profiles
> > have worked fine.
> 
> ...so why are people running around demanding that reinventing multilib
> is the number one priority and has to be in EAPI 5 immediately then? I
> was under the impression that your fellow developers don't consider the
> -emul packages to be an adequate solution. If that isn't the case, and
> the existing mechanism is in fact fine as you claim, then great, we can
> ignore multilib from an EAPI perspective.

	And now it needs revamped.. I see no problem with re-investigating the
problem to make it better/easier/whatever.

> I can only go on what your colleagues are claiming here. I suggest if
> you're upset at the suggestion that Gentoo doesn't have a decent
> multilib implementation then you take it up with all the people who are
> demanding the PMS team provide them with one.
> 

	I can only suggest you keep track of your train of thought.. In the
beginning vs now are two completely separate issues. We were first, is
it surprising the method needs looked at? No.

Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)
References:
My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Richard Yao
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Justin
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Homer Parker
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Next by thread:
Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Previous by date:
Re: [pre-GLEP] Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags
Next by date:
Re: [pre-GLEP] Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.