| 1 |
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 10:57, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> posted |
| 3 |
> > looks like your mail server ate this ... |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure |
| 6 |
> > directory tree rooted in /emul |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly |
| 9 |
> > ease the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of |
| 10 |
> > portage |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > it'd also let us free up env.d crap ... but most importantly, it'll stop |
| 13 |
> > breaking my friggin tab completion for /etc |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> It came thru b4. As an amd64 user, I've been hoping a member of the arch |
| 16 |
> team would reply, as it's a question that seeing it asked, I'm now curious |
| 17 |
> about myself, but nothing yet. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
i asked some others and they didnt get the e-mail either ... looks like our |
| 20 |
gentoo mail server is really starting to crash here ... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Pure speculation here, but the idea /might/ have been to separate prebuilt |
| 23 |
> binary stuff into /emul, so it wouldn't conflict with future multiarch |
| 24 |
> portage support (which would presumably use /lib32), which IIRC was hoped |
| 25 |
> to be here by now, but turned out to be rather complicated and had no |
| 26 |
> portage devs which had that particular itch they needed to scratch, so... |
| 27 |
> (IOW, no blame or finger pointing, just that we'd hoped it'd be here by |
| 28 |
> 2.1, and it isn't, and that's a fact amd64 continues to have to deal with.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
from what i remember, /emul was done because that's how some other distro was |
| 31 |
doing it ... but at the time i was staying out of multilib development |
| 32 |
because it sucked and i didnt have an amd64 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
now i have an amd64 and this current state annoys me greatly, so rather than |
| 35 |
bitch all the time, i want to fix it |
| 36 |
-mike |
Archives