| 1 |
On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass |
| 9 |
> > > > change, but I'd guess the number of packages and flags is |
| 10 |
> > > > constantly growing, so sooner or later you'll be hit by this |
| 11 |
> > > > again and no multilib killing will help you then. |
| 12 |
> > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > I think it is more future proof to use the addition of multilib |
| 14 |
> > > > flags to fix pkgcheck rather than actively reducing the number |
| 15 |
> > > > of multilib flags to cope with its limitations. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > Then please do it, by all means. The reality is simple. If the |
| 18 |
> > > tool is broken, you either fix it or stop doing what you know |
| 19 |
> > > that breaks it. Being unable to do the former, and having no good |
| 20 |
> > > replacement, I'd go for the latter. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Well, why is it slow ? IO ? CPU ? Did you collect profiling data ? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> CPU definitely. More detail than that, I don't and I don't have time |
| 25 |
> to investigate. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So you don't have time to change 3 lines to add cProfile but do have |
| 28 |
time to send various emails and rework the entire multilib system ? |
| 29 |
weird. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> > > > Also, remember that multilib is not entirely about skype or |
| 33 |
> > > > slack, this was made with multibin in mind too: for example an |
| 34 |
> > > > ABI may perform better than another one on specific workflows |
| 35 |
> > > > (x32) and it may make sense to use this abi for a specific |
| 36 |
> > > > binary (which would be manually built for now). |
| 37 |
> > > |
| 38 |
> > > No, it weren't. Just because someone found it convenient to use |
| 39 |
> > > the design beyond its original purpose doesn't mean it had a |
| 40 |
> > > different purpose. Besides, how many 'multibin' packages do we |
| 41 |
> > > have right now? |
| 42 |
> > |
| 43 |
> > It was, because portage multilib was doing this and claimed to have |
| 44 |
> > a use for this. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> I am not talking of 'portage multilib'. I am talking of |
| 47 |
> multilib-build implementation. If you are only concerned about the |
| 48 |
> former, we can surely drop those abi_* flags that are irrelevant to |
| 49 |
> it, can't we? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I am also talking about multilib-build and its way of doing cleanly and |
| 52 |
replacing portage multilib. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> > Its original purpose was generic enough to allow multibin |
| 56 |
> > to be added easily. The number of multibin packages is only |
| 57 |
> > relevant to show that this is not important enough for someone |
| 58 |
> > to step up and do it: Everybody can easily build anything themselves |
| 59 |
> > with the current implementation. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> Exactly. And that's why I believe having fast CI is more important |
| 62 |
> than DIY multibin. If someone can 'easily build anything |
| 63 |
> themselves', they can also add needed flags locally. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
It's a "little" more complex than just adding one flag to an eclass and |
| 67 |
cannot really be done with an overlay; in the end, this requires to fork |
| 68 |
gentoo.git more or less. |
Archives