| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22 April 2013 03:43, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Hi, |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I'd like to give you a heads up and explanation on what I'm doing |
| 7 |
>> today. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I'm in the process of converting emul-linux-x86-xlibs dependencies |
| 10 |
>> in gx86 with any-of dependencies supporting both emul-linux and split |
| 11 |
>> multilib packages. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> The goal of that process is to allow peaceful co-existence of both |
| 14 |
>> solutions while the migration work is being and a smooth transition |
| 15 |
>> once it's done. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> The common kind of committed dep now looks like: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> || ( |
| 20 |
>> ( |
| 21 |
>> x11-libs/libXfoo[abi_x86_32] |
| 22 |
>> x11-libs/libXbar[abi_x86_32] |
| 23 |
>> ) |
| 24 |
>> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-xlibs |
| 25 |
>> ) |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> And before you ask -- it works better than I'd expect it to. Portage |
| 28 |
>> just does the right thing depending on ABI_X86 setting. From my quick |
| 29 |
>> (and not thorough tests), it even seems to handle switching |
| 30 |
>> from emul-linux to multilib packages and back. |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> There are two notes however: |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> 1. well, the deps aren't that 100% awesome in EAPI<5 with paludis. It |
| 35 |
>> may not enforce USE-deps correctly, but a global ABI_X86 setting plus |
| 36 |
>> @world rebuild will make it work fine. but anyway -- whenever possible, |
| 37 |
>> please try to migrate packages to EAPI=5. |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> 2. some of the binary packages may actually prefer versioned deps to |
| 40 |
>> ensure matching SONAME. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> -- |
| 43 |
>> Best regards, |
| 44 |
>> Michał Górny |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> It should come as no surprise that I am not happy with this. While I applaud |
| 48 |
> your efforts to attempt to improve the multilib situation, I don't think we |
| 49 |
> are quite at the stage yet where this can be pushed as the default choice, |
| 50 |
> as you are doing now. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> In my opinion this belongs in an overlay for further development and much |
| 53 |
> more extensive testing. You are now pushing this to ebuilds that may very |
| 54 |
> well go stable within weeks — unless I'm missing something and you are |
| 55 |
> masking these features / useflags on stable. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> I am also not convinced this is the approach to multilib that we should be |
| 58 |
> taking, and I know there are others for who this is controversial as well. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> -- |
| 61 |
> Cheers, |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> Ben | yngwin |
| 64 |
> Gentoo developer |
| 65 |
> Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Do I assume correctly that this is a response to the freetype and |
| 68 |
fontconfig multilib bugs? |
Archives