| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I'm interested in this because I'm regularly annoyed with the emul- |
| 5 |
packages and also because multilib is pretty important for mips. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> If a package has dependencies, then those dependencies are required to have |
| 8 |
> at least the same targets enabled as the package |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That seems like the obvious (but perhaps naive) choice. What about |
| 11 |
depending on packages that don't install libraries, like x11-proto/ |
| 12 |
packages or generators like dev-util/indent? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Maybe I just don't understand. Would these packages even have ABI flags? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's clear to me that libraries would be installed in different lib* |
| 17 |
directories dependent on their ABI, but how would typical executables |
| 18 |
be handled? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For mips, we'd like to have gcc built as an n64 binary, which would |
| 21 |
require its run-time dependencies (mpfr, mpc, gmp, etc.) to be |
| 22 |
available as n64 as well, but the rest of the system to be n32 |
| 23 |
binaries. Does this fit with your understanding (and proposed |
| 24 |
solution) of the problem? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Matt |
Archives