1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
2 |
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:21:55 +0800 |
3 |
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 22 April 2013 03:43, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>>> The common kind of committed dep now looks like: |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> || ( |
10 |
>>> ( |
11 |
>>> x11-libs/libXfoo[abi_x86_32] |
12 |
>>> x11-libs/libXbar[abi_x86_32] |
13 |
>>> ) |
14 |
>>> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-xlibs |
15 |
>>> ) |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> It should come as no surprise that I am not happy with this. While I |
18 |
>> applaud your efforts to attempt to improve the multilib situation, I don't |
19 |
>> think we are quite at the stage yet where this can be pushed as the default |
20 |
>> choice, as you are doing now. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> This is an any-of dep, so it does not really change anything for |
23 |
> emul-linux users. I've taken specifically this approach to relax |
24 |
> the timeline for multilib attempt and allow testing it without the need |
25 |
> to enforce it on anyone. |
26 |
> |
27 |
>> I am also not convinced this is the approach to multilib that we should be |
28 |
>> taking, and I know there are others for who this is controversial as well. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I'm afraid that so far the most negative opinions came from people |
31 |
> directly related to the portage-multilib project. While I value their |
32 |
> opinion, I'm afraid they are a little biased by the fact that we're |
33 |
> working on something alternate to their project, and which may cause |
34 |
> their work to end up mostly irrelevant. |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
Really, please stop spreading FUD. |
38 |
|
39 |
Neither me as the maintainer of multilib-portage nor Steven as the |
40 |
original author of the multilib-native eclass have been telling you to |
41 |
stop your project, lied about you or insulted you personally (which i |
42 |
sadly cannot say the reverse way). |
43 |
|
44 |
The only situations, where you got negative feedback from me was in |
45 |
cases you did something bad (like moving headers into the libdir causing |
46 |
breakage for depending packages and additional work onto other maintainers). |
47 |
|
48 |
Additionally, i already wrote, that i am ok with an eclass based |
49 |
solution under certain conditions, so how you get to the conclusion, |
50 |
that i am against it is probably your secret. |
51 |
|
52 |
And finally, multilib-portage will still have its usecases if and when |
53 |
your eclass based multilib suggestions get widely used, so the |
54 |
irrelevance is again your personal view. |
55 |
|
56 |
You partly duplicated my work and need to be pushed hard to also add the |
57 |
features i have already developed and tested (like headers wrapping and |
58 |
binary wrapping). So i am rather amused about your behaviour and |
59 |
attitude to code/features already developed and tested in |
60 |
multilib-portage then anything else. ;-) |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
|
64 |
Thomas Sachau |
65 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |