| 1 |
On Monday 21 August 2006 10:29, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full |
| 4 |
> > multilib fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this |
| 5 |
> > was eradicator who has been mia for a while now so I'm unsure weather |
| 6 |
> > this is ever likely to arise. Given that it looks like we'll be stuck |
| 7 |
> > with these binary libs for some time yet then we may as well do as you |
| 8 |
> > suggest and install them in a standard location to make building against |
| 9 |
> > them a bit easier. I'll look into doing this when I next version bump the |
| 10 |
> > packages. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I still believe we should reserve the regular directory for the real |
| 13 |
> multilib stuff, otherwise it will be very painful when we decide to |
| 14 |
> move. And continue to put the stopgap binary packages in /emul. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
why ? this is what blockers are for |
| 17 |
-mike |
Archives