Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-multilib: wrapper eclass for multilib builds.

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:33:58 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:

> El dom, 23-09-2012 a las 11:56 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:07:30 +0200
> > Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > Matt Turner schrieb:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > > >> It is a simple eclass using autotools out-of-source builds to build
> > > >> packages for multiple ABIs when multilib is supported.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot, Michał! This looks good to me.
> > > >
> > > >> Use case: xorg packages, ask Matt.
> > > >
> > > > So the idea is that users want up-to-date 32-bit drivers for games and
> > > > WINE. The emul- packages aren't a very good solution for a number of
> > > > reasons.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to add multilib USE flags to Mesa and thus its dependencies.
> > > > I realized that almost everything in x11-libs/ could be converted very
> > > > easily, which would allow us to get rid of emul-linux-x86-xlibs in
> > > > addition to emul-linux-x86-opengl.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This looks like a shortened duplication of a subset of multilib-portage
> > > features. While this wont hurt multilib-portage (since it does exclude
> > > most actions on ebuilds with USE=multilib), it will mean a rewrite for
> > > many ebuilds, which then again need another rewrite (or more likely
> > > revert), when multilib-portage is accepted in a future EAPI.
> >
> > s/when/if/
> >
> > > So i would prefer some help/support with multilib-portage to get it
> > > accepted sooner, instead of this additional workaround for a subset of
> > > packages.
> >
> > I prefer the simpler solution.
> >
> > > P.S.: I know, that users, who want up-to-date 32bit drivers for games
> > > and wine do use multilib-portage, so we already have a working solution
> > > for this issue.
> >
> > They will no longer have to do that.
> >
>
> I would prefer if eclass way could be extended to packages not using
> autotools too, otherwise, we will still need emul packages for, for
> example, qt libs. If that would be possible via eclass, maybe
> multilib-portage wouldn't be needed but, if not, we will still need it
> and, then, would be nice if this inclussion for autotools packages
> wouldn't cause more problems to get the "strong" solution land in the
> "near" future :/
>
> The simpler solution (eclass) looks fine to me, but it would need to be
> extended to more packages than autotools based ones to let it replace
> portage-multilib/emul packages

Qt uses cmake, doesn't it?

I don't mind having cmake-multilib as well? We could probably move
the foreach_abi() function to some more common eclass, like multilib
eclass.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny