| 1 |
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly |
| 6 |
> > understand the issue with ABI specific headers. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > The problem is: |
| 9 |
> > a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel |
| 10 |
> > somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and |
| 11 |
> > fixing on your fellow devs |
| 12 |
> > b) just test such things in an overlay first and see it explode, then |
| 13 |
> > think about it again and ask on dev-ML if other people find it even |
| 14 |
> > WORTH the hassle |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> agreed with that |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > The other thing is: |
| 19 |
> > We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution |
| 20 |
> > (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until |
| 21 |
> > that conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what |
| 22 |
> > I actually think makes sense here). |
| 23 |
> > I understand both sides and somehow find it appealing to have a |
| 24 |
> > quicker solution, but since this could damage years of work on a |
| 25 |
> > portage fork I think we should slow down here. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> except there _has_ been a discussion: |
| 28 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80330 |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> where, at least for me, it appeared that the eclass solution was the |
| 31 |
> right way and portage-multilib had its defects that could not be solved |
| 32 |
> without such an eclass solution. |
| 33 |
> Long story short: portage-multilib does not handle deps needing |
| 34 |
> multilib and deps not needing them. Only packages maintainers know |
| 35 |
> that, you cannot guess it at the PM level. Doing unpack twice, while |
| 36 |
> bearable, is also suboptimal. portage-multilib already disables its |
| 37 |
> multilib support for multilib-enabled packages, thus there is not even |
| 38 |
> a conflict there. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> The lack of answer on my reply |
| 41 |
> ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/82740 ) made me |
| 42 |
> think that the main portage-multilib developer was agreeing with that. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> On the other hand, Michal has been doing the work and got things done |
| 45 |
> when portage-multilib has never reached mainline after several years |
| 46 |
> of development. So, while breaking the tree like the freetype case is |
| 47 |
> really bad, please do not use this for killing his efforts, esp. when |
| 48 |
> it is now masked. |
| 49 |
> If you want to start another discussion on the subject, then please |
| 50 |
> make a summary of the previous ones and start it (council will very |
| 51 |
> likely ask you to do it if you want a vote anyway). If you do not want |
| 52 |
> to, then please thank Michal for getting things done and finally giving |
| 53 |
> us a sane multilib support. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Alexis. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Personally, I second this Alexis appreciations, I also highly appreciate |
| 60 |
how Michal is working on getting things done and I doubt he broke the |
| 61 |
tree on purpose (he has contacted me multiple times to ensure wouldn't |
| 62 |
be collisions in transition period with emul packages, then, I doubt we |
| 63 |
can blame on him saying he doesn't discuss things enough). He committed |
| 64 |
a broken package? Yes, but also masked it soon enough and is working on |
| 65 |
fixing the problem. |
Archives