| 1 |
On 30/03/2015 15:04, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 +0000 (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>>> Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not |
| 7 |
>>>> allow one single ebuild to automagically change the behaviour of |
| 8 |
>>>> multiple other ebuilds. The correct way to bring about changes in |
| 9 |
>>>> behaviour is to add your global choices to make.conf (which is |
| 10 |
>>>> outside the control of the tree), or to add your explicit changes to |
| 11 |
>>>> package.* |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> ..that just shows the root of the problem: the ABI is not handled |
| 14 |
>>> consistently, but rather as a per-package configuration choice. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> The news item also showed how to make it a global choice, avoiding the |
| 17 |
>> need to multiple per-package directories. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I'm not sure that's a solution to the problem at all (which is why I |
| 20 |
> didn't do it on my machines either). Apart from always wasting much more |
| 21 |
> work & resources than necessary for no good reason it doesn't answer the |
| 22 |
> question what happens as soon as I want to build a package that is |
| 23 |
> 64-bit-only - in which case you'd end up in the same situation we have |
| 24 |
> now, just mirrored. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Maybe it's time we asked the multilib devs how they intended to deal |
| 28 |
with these questions you raise. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 33 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives