Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: tommy@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:45:44
Message-Id: 20130309114534.138bf931@portable
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs by Thomas Sachau
1 On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:44:16 +0100
2 Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Alexis Ballier schrieb:
5 > > On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:59:35 +0100
6 > > Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote:
7 > >>
8 > >> I dont have a list of binaries, i either noticed myself some
9 > >> abi-specific behaviour or got user reports for abi-specific
10 > >> behaviour. As an example i remember, dev-libs/libIDL has a config
11 > >> binary not matching the usual *-config scheme (libIDL-config-2),
12 > >> so instead of adding a random list of patterns, i simply added
13 > >> that package to the list of packages with wrapped binaries. The
14 > >> same applies to mysql, which has a mysql_config binary.
15 > >
16 > > Ok, so those make perfect sense for being wrapped and should be done
17 > > per-binary not per-package: We do not really want to wrap all mysql
18 > > binaries just for mysql_config.
19 > > Ebuilds should declare the binaries they want to be wrapped, so we
20 > > can grep the tree for getting a list of what to fight against if we
21 > > want a cleaner multilib system :)
22 >
23 > This is possible, but will make the solution more complex or limited
24 > (either the solution does not allow users to opt-in for wrapping all
25 > binaries of a package or you need an additional option for users to
26 > opt-in beside the variable, which includes the needed binaries).
27
28 Why do you want _users_ to do that? Ebuilds should do it. We are
29 talking about multi_lib_ not multi_arch_ after all :)
30 If you want to wrap all binaries, it may be allowable to have a regexp
31 there so that '*/bin/*' would wrap them all, but I don't think it is a
32 good idea to do that.
33
34 > >> I am not sure about the target of your qmake question, so as a
35 > >> general answer:
36 > >>
37 > >> qmake is something like configure for qmake based build systems. If
38 > >> you want to see the difference between qmake (32bit) and qmake
39 > >> (64bit), run a 64bit qmake on a qmake based package and do the same
40 > >> with a 32bit qmake and check the difference between the 2 runs.
41 > >
42 > > Well, I'm asking this because I don't have access to a 32bit qmake
43 > > here so a diff of the files generated by the two will be useful :P
44 > > And I believe it makes sense to study in details this case to
45 > > understand whether we want to wrap it or not. As Davide said, it is
46 > > likely that overriding the correct variable may make qmake output
47 > > not abi-specific. The difference between g++-64 and g++-32 qmake
48 > > mkspec is only a -m32 vs -m64 cflag which I think is overridden
49 > > elsewhere in our ebuilds so this should not matter much.
50 >
51 > If you want an example diff, can you point me to a small qmake based
52 > package?
53
54 media-video/smplayer or media-sound/qjackctl but this one also uses
55 autoconf before
56
57
58 Alexis.