| 1 |
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:05:58 +0200 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 09/23/2012 12:40 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 8 |
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:02:01 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |
| 9 |
> > wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> On 09/23/2012 11:56 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 14 |
> >>>> So i would prefer some help/support with multilib-portage to |
| 15 |
> >>>> get it accepted sooner, instead of this additional workaround |
| 16 |
> >>>> for a subset of packages. |
| 17 |
> >>> |
| 18 |
> >>> I prefer the simpler solution. |
| 19 |
> >>> |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> >> I prefer the stronger solution. This is just a quick workaround. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > How is it stronger? By doing implicit magic on every ebuild? |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> a) does not involve modifying ebuilds |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
How can you tell whether a particular ebuild does install libraries |
| 29 |
which are suitable for multilib? Or are we enforcing multilib for every |
| 30 |
single program now? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> c) is tested and developed for quite some time |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Building packages on two ABIs was developed quite a long time ago, |
| 35 |
and was tested since. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Best regards, |
| 39 |
Michał Górny |
Archives