| 1 |
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on your |
| 6 |
>> system when you're using something like wine. Just don't set the |
| 7 |
>> flag except explicitly if you actually need it somewhere, and it |
| 8 |
>> will get pulled in where it is needed, and go away when it is no |
| 9 |
>> longer needed. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> re multilib, under what configuration does abi_x86_32 get set on its |
| 13 |
> own? With a blank ABI_X86 variable in make.conf? Every 32-bit package |
| 14 |
> I've ever pulled in has needed that flag set, and I've had to manually |
| 15 |
> set it until blockers are resolved. I've not set -abi_x86_32 globally |
| 16 |
> or anything like that. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We're talking about a proposed portage feature which hasn't been |
| 19 |
written yet. None of the behavior described in this thread happens |
| 20 |
today. Right now all those abi_x86_32 flags are set explicitly, which |
| 21 |
is why my package.use file is about 10x larger than it used to be. |
| 22 |
I'm contemplating splitting out the 32-bit stuff into a separate file |
| 23 |
and just nuking it every 6-months and allowing portage to re-create it |
| 24 |
to try to keep it somewhat manageable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And that is the inspiration for this. The current design mixes true |
| 27 |
user preferences with stuff added by auto-unmask needed just to |
| 28 |
fulfill dependencies. Users should be easily able to prioritize the |
| 29 |
one above the other. Indeed, maybe I have a few 32-bit library |
| 30 |
preferences which are explicit and now if I go to nuke then every six |
| 31 |
months I have to keep track of which ones are which. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
With the proposed lazy use flags then for the most part 32-bit support |
| 34 |
would be automagic for most users. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives