| 1 |
On 09/23/2012 03:02 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/23/2012 11:56 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> So i would prefer some help/support with multilib-portage to get |
| 4 |
>>> it accepted sooner, instead of this additional workaround for a |
| 5 |
>>> subset of packages. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> I prefer the simpler solution. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I prefer the stronger solution. This is just a quick workaround. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> -1 |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm in favor of adding multilib functions to the package manager in a |
| 16 |
future EAPI, but I'm not convinced that the current multilib-portage |
| 17 |
branch is using the best design. For example, it recently came to my |
| 18 |
attention that it calls pkg_preinst in a loop for each multilib-ABI. |
| 19 |
This seems like a bad idea to me, since pkg_preinst often contains stuff |
| 20 |
that only needs to run once, rather than for each multilib-ABI. I would |
| 21 |
prefer that such loops be coded explicitly in pkg_preinst whenever they |
| 22 |
are needed, and approach taken by the proposed autotools-multilib.eclass |
| 23 |
is more in alignment with this preference. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives