1 |
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:05:30 +0100 Marc Joliet <marcec@×××.de> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Am Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:09:16 +0200 |
4 |
> schrieb Gevisz <gevisz@×××××.com>: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Looking into profile list, I have found out new, |
7 |
> > at least for me, no-emul profiles. (As far as I |
8 |
> > remember, they were not there one and a half |
9 |
> > years ago, when I installed my first Gentoo system.) |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > I tried to google something about them but have |
12 |
> > found virtually nothing except for the following |
13 |
> > wiki page: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multilib_System_without_emul-linux_Packages |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > It is not about profiles at all but I guess that |
16 |
> > no-emul profile provides the same result while |
17 |
> > installing the system. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Am I right? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> In short: yes, I think so. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> It Looks to me like a new profile that uses proper multilib (something that |
24 |
> some Gentoo devs have been working on for several years now, in fact) instead |
25 |
> of the pre-compiled 32 bit packages (app-emulation/emul-linux-*), so that now, |
26 |
> finally, (some) packages can be compiled for both 32 and 64 bits. Specifically, |
27 |
> I think it is explicitly for wine users. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Actually, I'm mildly excited that proper multilib (at least for amd64) appears |
30 |
> to be nearing completion, or at least a usable state. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> > If so, I have a few more questions: |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > Is it stable? |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> > Is it worth to choose it while installing a new Gentoo system? |
37 |
> |
38 |
> No clue about these two, since I haven't tried it, but I've never heard of |
39 |
> "experimental" profiles, |
40 |
|
41 |
I have seen such a warning when googling about uclibc profile |
42 |
(but it is hard to say when this warning was issued). |
43 |
|
44 |
> so I don't expect it to be broken (but see below). |
45 |
|
46 |
> Anyway, I just switched to default/linux/amd64/13.0/no-emul-linux-x86/desktop |
47 |
> as an experiment and am waiting for emerge @world to finish :) . |
48 |
|
49 |
Thank you for trying it. :) |
50 |
|
51 |
> So the no-emul-linux-x86 profiles are fairly simple: they unmask the abi_x86_32 |
52 |
> USE flag (at least for enough packages to satisfy wine's dependency tree), mask |
53 |
> the emul-linux-* packages, and mask some older versions of packages that don't |
54 |
> have the necessary multilib support. I needed to upgrade 5 packages, of which |
55 |
> four (gnutls, texinfo, nettle, and libSM) have open stabilisation bugs. |
56 |
|
57 |
Does not this mean that it is a bit experimental? |
58 |
|
59 |
> The one without was wine, but I don't mind in its case. After that and adding |
60 |
> lots of abi_x86_32 USE flags, portage was able to sort out all blockers by itself |
61 |
> and emerge @world started running successfully. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> There is also a corresponding abi_x86_64 USE flag that remains masked, so you |
64 |
> don't get the full granularity yet, but it will get there eventually :) . |
65 |
|
66 |
What is still unclear for me (but it is not the question to you but to |
67 |
the creators of this profile) is the following: |
68 |
|
69 |
In the wiki page I have mentioned above, is written: |
70 |
"This document will show how to setup a Gentoo ~amd64 system for this |
71 |
new way of dealing with 32bit libraries. A stable amd64 system may not |
72 |
work this way but if the new feature is completely stable, it will be |
73 |
available to all users eventually." |
74 |
|
75 |
That suggests that with the time all these features will be included |
76 |
into the usual default amd64 profile, and thus amd64 no-emul profile |
77 |
seems to be somewhat experimental (at least as to my logic :). |
78 |
|
79 |
If so, will it be abandoned with time or just converge to the default |
80 |
amd64 profile? |
81 |
|
82 |
> > Can I expect that in this case I will be able to install |
83 |
> > and run such applications as, say, wine? |
84 |
> |
85 |
> I would expect so. The wine ebuilds (at least for version 1.7.x) have supported |
86 |
> multilib for a while now (just check the changelog), as an alternative to the |
87 |
> emul-linux-* packages. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> > Thank you. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> HTH |
92 |
|
93 |
Yes, thank you. |