1 |
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:11:27 -0500 |
3 |
> Homer Parker <hparker@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
5 |
> > > In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was |
6 |
> > > done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really |
7 |
> > > thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work... |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > No, but paved the way for other distros as they had nothing |
10 |
> > even close. I'm sure you remember back then. Don't be an ass. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> And what did Gentoo get out of it? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing |
15 |
> things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of |
16 |
> those changes were or why they were done. The end result is that |
17 |
> there's still a random smattering of multilib-related mess cluttering |
18 |
> up ebuild internals that doesn't actually do anything except cause |
19 |
> intermittent breakages. Doing experiments is great as a way of |
20 |
> understanding the problem, but it isn't how you deliver a solution. |
21 |
> That takes a lot more work, and someone has to be prepared to do it. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
The hell? Other distos where still thinking of how to implement |
25 |
multilib and we had it. I know first hand as I trashed a system trying |
26 |
out the latest-n-greatest.. And the next round fixed it. The -emul |
27 |
packages from then on along with the multilib profiles have worked fine. |
28 |
Again, quit being an ass. Oh, and what I remember is.. You didn't |
29 |
contribute. There was kingtaco, lv, and kuglafang <sp?>. So you're clear |
30 |
there, you didn't have a damn thing to do with it. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Homer Parker <hparker@g.o> |