1 |
On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:43:13AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree |
4 |
> > rooted in /emul |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease |
7 |
> > the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of portage |
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Mike, Sorry I missed you on irc yesterday, didn't get back til later than |
11 |
> expected. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I'm not sure why /emul was originally chosen though it's a choice I've |
14 |
> just gone along with whilst maintaining these packages. |
15 |
|
16 |
It was chosen because emul packages are put in /emul on ia64. |
17 |
|
18 |
> I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full multilib |
19 |
> fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this was |
20 |
> eradicator who has been mia for a while now so I'm unsure weather this |
21 |
> is ever likely to arise. Given that it looks like we'll be stuck with |
22 |
> these binary libs for some time yet then we may as well do as you |
23 |
> suggest and install them in a standard location to make building against |
24 |
> them a bit easier. I'll look into doing this when I next version bump the |
25 |
> packages. |
26 |
|
27 |
I still believe we should reserve the regular directory for the real |
28 |
multilib stuff, otherwise it will be very painful when we decide to |
29 |
move. And continue to put the stopgap binary packages in /emul. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Olivier CrĂȘte |
33 |
tester@g.o |