| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 4:39 PM Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The part "Mask packages that rely on amd64 multilib" implies that |
| 4 |
> something in the package relies on multilib. This is the first time |
| 5 |
> I've run into something requiring multilib since trying to build WINE, |
| 6 |
> ages ago. And my system is no-multilib. Is there a way around this? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I haven't used it in a while, but the SDK installer largely installs |
| 10 |
prebuilt binaries and other files from upstream, and I'm guessing that |
| 11 |
some of those are 32-bit. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If all you need is adb then there is dev-util/android-tools, which I'm |
| 14 |
guessing is fine with multilib (it looks like a regular source-based |
| 15 |
package at a glance). If you need the SDK you could force it to be |
| 16 |
unmasked and maybe the parts that you need might happen to work, but I |
| 17 |
wouldn't count on it. I don't think it would break anything on your |
| 18 |
system - it would just fail to work correctly and you could unmerge |
| 19 |
it. If it wants to pull in a bunch of other masked stuff I'd hesitate |
| 20 |
to unmask anything else without a good understanding of what you're |
| 21 |
doing. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives