El dom, 23-09-2012 a las 13:52 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió: > Pacho Ramos schrieb: > > El dom, 23-09-2012 a las 11:56 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:07:30 +0200 > >> Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Matt Turner schrieb: > >>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>>> It is a simple eclass using autotools out-of-source builds to build > >>>>> packages for multiple ABIs when multilib is supported. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks a lot, Michał! This looks good to me. > >>>> > >>>>> Use case: xorg packages, ask Matt. > >>>> > >>>> So the idea is that users want up-to-date 32-bit drivers for games and > >>>> WINE. The emul- packages aren't a very good solution for a number of > >>>> reasons. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to add multilib USE flags to Mesa and thus its dependencies. > >>>> I realized that almost everything in x11-libs/ could be converted very > >>>> easily, which would allow us to get rid of emul-linux-x86-xlibs in > >>>> addition to emul-linux-x86-opengl. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> This looks like a shortened duplication of a subset of multilib-portage > >>> features. While this wont hurt multilib-portage (since it does exclude > >>> most actions on ebuilds with USE=multilib), it will mean a rewrite for > >>> many ebuilds, which then again need another rewrite (or more likely > >>> revert), when multilib-portage is accepted in a future EAPI. > >> > >> s/when/if/ > >> > >>> So i would prefer some help/support with multilib-portage to get it > >>> accepted sooner, instead of this additional workaround for a subset of > >>> packages. > >> > >> I prefer the simpler solution. > >> > >>> P.S.: I know, that users, who want up-to-date 32bit drivers for games > >>> and wine do use multilib-portage, so we already have a working solution > >>> for this issue. > >> > >> They will no longer have to do that. > >> > > > > I would prefer if eclass way could be extended to packages not using > > autotools too, otherwise, we will still need emul packages for, for > > example, qt libs. If that would be possible via eclass, maybe > > multilib-portage wouldn't be needed but, if not, we will still need it > > and, then, would be nice if this inclussion for autotools packages > > wouldn't cause more problems to get the "strong" solution land in the > > "near" future :/ > > > > The simpler solution (eclass) looks fine to me, but it would need to be > > extended to more packages than autotools based ones to let it replace > > portage-multilib/emul packages > > > > you mean something like this one? > > https://github.com/sjnewbury/multilib-overlay/blob/80c9fd20cfd05481ac19edcadd56ad5e578a8930/eclass/multilib-native.eclass > > That was the original eclass allowing cross-compile support, but > required ebuilds to inherit it. multilib-portage is based on this, but > does not require to modify the ebuilds themselves. >
Yes, that is what I meant... but I don't find hard to modify ebuilds to inherit it :/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
