1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
2 |
> Hello, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be |
5 |
> a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib which is not really |
8 |
> expressive and poor. What I would go for is a clear variable specifying |
9 |
> which targets package is built for. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> This raises the following questions: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> 1) do we want the default ABI to be switchable? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> 2) do we want irrelevant ABIs to be visible to emerge users? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> By 2) I mean: do we want the users to see stuff like: |
19 |
> |
20 |
> MULTILIB_ABIS="amd64_abi1 amd64_abi2 -amd64_abi3 (-ppc64_abi1) |
21 |
> (-ppc64_abi2) (-ppc64_abi3) ..." |
22 |
> |
23 |
> or just the relevant part. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags than |
26 |
> using USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. If we want to use that, we'd have to split |
27 |
> the flags per-arch, i.e. have: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> MULTILIB_AMD64="abi1 abi2 abi3" |
30 |
> MULTILIB_PPC64="abi1 abi2 abi3" |
31 |
> |
32 |
> with appropriate USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN set by profiles. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> |
35 |
> What are your thoughts? Which arches would like to use multilib? What |
36 |
> names for ABIs do you suggest? |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
So you want to re-implement multilib-portage in an eclass without the |
40 |
additional benefits a package-manager level implementation has? |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
|
44 |
Thomas Sachau |
45 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |