1 |
On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 13:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Monday 21 August 2006 10:29, Olivier CrĂȘte wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: |
4 |
> > > I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full |
5 |
> > > multilib fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this |
6 |
> > > was eradicator who has been mia for a while now so I'm unsure weather |
7 |
> > > this is ever likely to arise. Given that it looks like we'll be stuck |
8 |
> > > with these binary libs for some time yet then we may as well do as you |
9 |
> > > suggest and install them in a standard location to make building against |
10 |
> > > them a bit easier. I'll look into doing this when I next version bump the |
11 |
> > > packages. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > I still believe we should reserve the regular directory for the real |
14 |
> > multilib stuff, otherwise it will be very painful when we decide to |
15 |
> > move. And continue to put the stopgap binary packages in /emul. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> why ? this is what blockers are for |
18 |
|
19 |
Will we make emul-x86-gtk-libs block gtk+? We dont have use based |
20 |
deps/blockers... how long will it take before we have API/arch based |
21 |
ones. In my humble opinion, keeping that stuff in emul is much better, |
22 |
in the same way as we would install binary packages in /opt and |
23 |
not /usr. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Olivier CrĂȘte |
27 |
tester@g.o |
28 |
Gentoo Developer |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |