Am 29.01.2011 19:30, schrieb Pacho Ramos: > El sáb, 29-01-2011 a las 13:10 -0500, Nathan Phillip Brink escribió: >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> I would like to know what is "blocking" this from landing main tree in >>> the "near" future, as I reviewed: >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg41737.html >>> >>> and looks like there wasn't major problems (at least commented in this >>> thread) >> >> There are still a number of known build failures, tracked in >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/portage-multilib . There are probably >> many more portage-multilib-related build failures which haven't been >> encountered yet nor reported. Also, even these reported bugs are not >> necessarily fixed first because they only affect us the minority ;-). > > OK, thanks. Maybe bug 306835 should block bug 145737 instead of > depending on it, not?
I think, they are mostly dublicates, bug 145737 was the original
multilib-portage idea of kanaka,
but he discontinued it. The version of today (bug 306835) does partly base on
his work and partly on
the work with the native-multilib eclass from some Gentoo users with some
additional changes from me.
>
>>
>> Most everything is easy to debug and as simple as replacing calls to
>> $(LD) in poorly-written Makefileswith with calls to $(CC), fixing
>> packages which ignore CFLAGS (where we store our -m32) or LDFLAGS
>> (where we now also store -m32 since one's not allowed to require
>> buildsystems to call $(CC) with $(CFLAGS) when objects are being
>> linked into an executable or library).
>>
>> However, packages which use qmake or cmake macros installed by KDE are
>> more difficult to debug and there are other funny issues such as
>> CFLAGS being stored by a library's buildsystem and stored into
>> /usr/share instead of an ABI-dependent directory, breaking packages
>> which use that library... ;-)
>>
>> Also, there are still some decisions/changes to portage-multilib which
>> might be made The most recent idea discussed was: should ${ARCH}
>> useflags (like SRC_URI="x86? ( http://host/my-binari-x86.tar.bz2 )")
>> be replaced with ${ABI} useflags or should we rewrite a bunch of
>> ebuilds in the tree to be multilib-aware? For example:
>>
>> Say we have
>> ABI=x86
>> ARCH=amd64
>>
>> Does ``use x86'' return true or do we need to use ``use multilib_abi_x86''?
>> Do detect the true arch, do we need ``use arch_amd64'' or does ``use amd64''
>> still return true?
>>
>
> Where do you discuss things like this? IRC channel? Mailing-list?
> Thanks :-)
Most communication is done in #gentoo-multilib-overlay on freenode IRC. I have
also created a mail
alias (multilib@g.o), but it is only used for some bugzilla assignments at the
moment.
--
Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
