| 1 |
Alexis Ballier schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> The other thing is: |
| 6 |
>> We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution |
| 7 |
>> (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until |
| 8 |
>> that conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what |
| 9 |
>> I actually think makes sense here). |
| 10 |
>> I understand both sides and somehow find it appealing to have a |
| 11 |
>> quicker solution, but since this could damage years of work on a |
| 12 |
>> portage fork I think we should slow down here. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> except there _has_ been a discussion: |
| 15 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80330 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> where, at least for me, it appeared that the eclass solution was the |
| 18 |
> right way and portage-multilib had its defects that could not be solved |
| 19 |
> without such an eclass solution. |
| 20 |
> Long story short: portage-multilib does not handle deps needing |
| 21 |
> multilib and deps not needing them. Only packages maintainers know |
| 22 |
> that, you cannot guess it at the PM level. Doing unpack twice, while |
| 23 |
> bearable, is also suboptimal. portage-multilib already disables its |
| 24 |
> multilib support for multilib-enabled packages, thus there is not even |
| 25 |
> a conflict there. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So you discussed with mgorny (who does not like multilib-portage) and |
| 28 |
not me and then assume that all details have been written in there? :-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> The lack of answer on my reply |
| 32 |
> ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/82740 ) made me |
| 33 |
> think that the main portage-multilib developer was agreeing with that. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Feel free to write my name here ;-) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
And it seems more likely i just missed that mail, i did not |
| 38 |
intentionally ignore it. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Anyway, in short: the current implementation does add dependencies so |
| 41 |
that all dependencies need the same ABIs enabled as the package you |
| 42 |
want. If we move the features into a future EAPI, we can of course drop |
| 43 |
this and leave the dependency part to the ebuild maintainer. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> On the other hand, Michal has been doing the work and got things done |
| 47 |
> when portage-multilib has never reached mainline after several years |
| 48 |
> of development. So, while breaking the tree like the freetype case is |
| 49 |
> really bad, please do not use this for killing his efforts, esp. when |
| 50 |
> it is now masked. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
If you did not know it: anyone can add an eclass, while adding new |
| 53 |
features via package manager requires a new EAPI. |
| 54 |
I have written about it on this list for many months, if not years. And |
| 55 |
every time i solved a request, a new one was raised. And you want to |
| 56 |
blaim me for multilib-portage not reaching the main tree? |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Anyway, if there is a sane and easy to use eclass created, which does |
| 60 |
just multilib and does it properly for all multilib arches also |
| 61 |
supporting per ABI headers and binaries, i am not opposed against it. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I just see issues the way a work-in-progress is pushed into the main |
| 64 |
tree without prior discussion and additional hacks for issues (freetype |
| 65 |
headers) forcing other devs to do more work instead of asking for |
| 66 |
another solution not needing any additional work for depending packages. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
-- |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 71 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives