| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:21:55 +0800 |
| 2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 22 April 2013 03:43, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > The common kind of committed dep now looks like: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > || ( |
| 9 |
> > ( |
| 10 |
> > x11-libs/libXfoo[abi_x86_32] |
| 11 |
> > x11-libs/libXbar[abi_x86_32] |
| 12 |
> > ) |
| 13 |
> > app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-xlibs |
| 14 |
> > ) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It should come as no surprise that I am not happy with this. While I |
| 17 |
> applaud your efforts to attempt to improve the multilib situation, I don't |
| 18 |
> think we are quite at the stage yet where this can be pushed as the default |
| 19 |
> choice, as you are doing now. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is an any-of dep, so it does not really change anything for |
| 22 |
emul-linux users. I've taken specifically this approach to relax |
| 23 |
the timeline for multilib attempt and allow testing it without the need |
| 24 |
to enforce it on anyone. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I am also not convinced this is the approach to multilib that we should be |
| 27 |
> taking, and I know there are others for who this is controversial as well. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm afraid that so far the most negative opinions came from people |
| 30 |
directly related to the portage-multilib project. While I value their |
| 31 |
opinion, I'm afraid they are a little biased by the fact that we're |
| 32 |
working on something alternate to their project, and which may cause |
| 33 |
their work to end up mostly irrelevant. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives