On 23 September 2012 18:40, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:33:58 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> 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 > > Qt uses cmake, doesn't it?
No, it uses qmake, its own make tool. See qt4-build and qt4-r2 eclasses. KDE and a number of other reverse dependencies of the Qt libs do use cmake. > I don't mind having cmake-multilib as well? We could probably move > the foreach_abi() function to some more common eclass, like multilib > eclass. > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
