| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò |
| 2 |
<flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 22/09/2012 20:42, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I think this means "make 32-bit binary packages' dependencies on amd64 |
| 5 |
>> not use the emul- packages"? If so, that'd certainly be a component of |
| 6 |
>> getting rid of emul-linux-x86-xlibs. It's not in the scope of my |
| 7 |
>> project to get rid of /all/ of the emul- packages, but I agree that |
| 8 |
>> that is a worthwhile goal. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Mostly I don't want to have to build Xaw in both variants given I use |
| 11 |
> neither.. but that would happen if you just made the emul depend on the |
| 12 |
> packages that are converted... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Ahh, indeed. You mean that existing dependencies on |
| 15 |
emul-linux-x86-xlibs should be converted into finer-grained |
| 16 |
dependencies on individual libraries. Of course, that is a very good |
| 17 |
idea. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In the case of Xaw, I added a deprecated USE flag recently that |
| 20 |
controls the building of the old Xaw6, so we're already working toward |
| 21 |
trimming Xaw from users' systems. :) |
Archives