1 |
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:58 +0100 |
2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> This is just my own view on this and NOT complete, Tommy[D] will |
5 |
> probably have a more complete list what the eclasses currently lack |
6 |
> and where they will fail. |
7 |
> Mgorny will have a more complete list why multilib-portage is a bad |
8 |
> hack. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> PM level: |
12 |
> pro: |
13 |
> - one-blow solution, tree-wide |
14 |
> - _much_ less modification on ebuilds needed |
15 |
> - will be properly documented in the spec, something people can |
16 |
> rely on |
17 |
> - multilib-portage has years of experience on ABI issues |
18 |
> con: |
19 |
> - difficult to maintain (please count the number of people who |
20 |
> understand portage code) |
21 |
> - slower fixes |
22 |
> - still no merge into mainline in sight, could very well take |
23 |
> another few months, if at all |
24 |
|
25 |
- suboptimal (run all the src_* phases twice) |
26 |
- from what i've understood it does not deal with nolib packages |
27 |
properly: what happens for eg coreutils or texlive-latexextra ? Do we |
28 |
unpack, build and install them twice ? Really ? Try to install |
29 |
tl-latexextra on a 5400rpm laptop disk, you'll see you do not want |
30 |
that time to double :) |
31 |
- the spec will likely include specificities: e.g. |
32 |
setting PKG_CONFIG_PATH |
33 |
what happens if I want a multilib ocaml install (stupid idea btw but |
34 |
that's an example): the pkgconfig equivalent for ocaml is findlib. |
35 |
You will likely want to override OCAMLFIND_CONF for doing a multilib |
36 |
install. You will need to change the spec. |
37 |
|
38 |
> eclass level: |
39 |
> pro: |
40 |
> - easier to maintain (eclasses are generally easy understandable) |
41 |
> - quicker to fix and to extend |
42 |
> - solution is NOW available |
43 |
> con: |
44 |
> - more likely to break stuff as all eclass based solutions, because |
45 |
> there are no eclass-APIs and no spec |
46 |
|
47 |
if done correctly this should not happen, but that's true the eapi |
48 |
barrier is not there. |
49 |
|
50 |
> - needs much more modification on ebuilds, especially for weird |
51 |
> build systems |
52 |
|
53 |
the eclass you proposed implements more or less the multilib-portage |
54 |
solution without much changes. if you want to do it cleanly (out of |
55 |
source build, etc) then yes you need much more changes but also get |
56 |
something you cannot do from the PM side. |
57 |
|
58 |
> - not tree-wide, slow per-package migration |
59 |
|
60 |
it is a pro rather than a con for me: do we really want lib32 to be the |
61 |
32bits copy of lib64? or do we want here only what actually makes |
62 |
sense, on a per-package and per-need basis? (see also the tl-latexextra |
63 |
example above) |
64 |
|
65 |
Alexis. |