| 1 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
200608081143.13375.vapier@g.o, excerpted below, on Tue, 08 Aug |
| 3 |
2006 11:43:13 -0400: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> looks like your mail server ate this ... |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure |
| 8 |
> directory tree rooted in /emul |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly |
| 11 |
> ease the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of |
| 12 |
> portage |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> it'd also let us free up env.d crap ... but most importantly, it'll stop |
| 15 |
> breaking my friggin tab completion for /etc |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It came thru b4. As an amd64 user, I've been hoping a member of the arch |
| 18 |
team would reply, as it's a question that seeing it asked, I'm now curious |
| 19 |
about myself, but nothing yet. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Pure speculation here, but the idea /might/ have been to separate prebuilt |
| 22 |
binary stuff into /emul, so it wouldn't conflict with future multiarch |
| 23 |
portage support (which would presumably use /lib32), which IIRC was hoped |
| 24 |
to be here by now, but turned out to be rather complicated and had no |
| 25 |
portage devs which had that particular itch they needed to scratch, so... |
| 26 |
(IOW, no blame or finger pointing, just that we'd hoped it'd be here by |
| 27 |
2.1, and it isn't, and that's a fact amd64 continues to have to deal with.) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
As I said, pure speculation, likely wrong, but that's the first logical |
| 30 |
thing that came to my mind. I too am interested in a real answer. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 34 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 35 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives