| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:43:13AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree |
| 3 |
> rooted in /emul |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease |
| 6 |
> the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of portage |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Mike, Sorry I missed you on irc yesterday, didn't get back til later than |
| 10 |
expected. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm not sure why /emul was originally chosen though it's a choice I've |
| 13 |
just gone along with whilst maintaining these packages. I've always |
| 14 |
viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full multilib |
| 15 |
fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this was |
| 16 |
eradicator who has been mia for a while now so I'm unsure weather this |
| 17 |
is ever likely to arise. Given that it looks like we'll be stuck with |
| 18 |
these binary libs for some time yet then we may as well do as you |
| 19 |
suggest and install them in a standard location to make building against |
| 20 |
them a bit easier. I'll look into doing this when I next version bump the |
| 21 |
packages. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Herbs |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives