| 1 |
On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass |
| 5 |
> > change, but I'd guess the number of packages and flags is |
| 6 |
> > constantly growing, so sooner or later you'll be hit by this again |
| 7 |
> > and no multilib killing will help you then. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I think it is more future proof to use the addition of multilib |
| 10 |
> > flags to fix pkgcheck rather than actively reducing the number of |
| 11 |
> > multilib flags to cope with its limitations. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Then please do it, by all means. The reality is simple. If the tool |
| 14 |
> is broken, you either fix it or stop doing what you know that breaks |
| 15 |
> it. Being unable to do the former, and having no good replacement, |
| 16 |
> I'd go for the latter. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Well, why is it slow ? IO ? CPU ? Did you collect profiling data ? |
| 20 |
Where are the scripts to repro the issue ? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > Also, remember that multilib is not entirely about skype or slack, |
| 24 |
> > this was made with multibin in mind too: for example an ABI may |
| 25 |
> > perform better than another one on specific workflows (x32) and it |
| 26 |
> > may make sense to use this abi for a specific binary (which would |
| 27 |
> > be manually built for now). |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> No, it weren't. Just because someone found it convenient to use the |
| 30 |
> design beyond its original purpose doesn't mean it had a different |
| 31 |
> purpose. Besides, how many 'multibin' packages do we have right now? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
It was, because portage multilib was doing this and claimed to have a |
| 35 |
use for this. Its original purpose was generic enough to allow multibin |
| 36 |
to be added easily. The number of multibin packages is only |
| 37 |
relevant to show that this is not important enough for someone |
| 38 |
to step up and do it: Everybody can easily build anything themselves |
| 39 |
with the current implementation. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> That said, yes, I am also concerned about people proactively adding |
| 43 |
> multilib to all random libraries which probably will never have any |
| 44 |
> real multilib use case and only waste time of people who have |
| 45 |
> abi_x86_32 enabled globally. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
That last part is easily fixable: Have a useflag config option that |
| 48 |
says "default off unless some package wants it on". This can be either |
| 49 |
in the ebuild themselves (alike +/- iuse defaults) or, more simply, in |
| 50 |
the package manager. None ever saw the light. |
Archives