Dnia 2013-11-14, o godz. 07:49:55 Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> > It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is
> > {package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to manage the partial
> > transisition between emul-* and multilib-build dependencies
>
> ^^
>
> Why is there a partial random transition with no roadmap, no coordination?
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multilib_porting_status
That's the closest thing to a roadmap.
So tell me, what you exactly want or need? Or is it just bare
complaining for the sake of complaining?
> A more clean way would have been to target each of the emul-x86
> libraries, replace one completely with multilib-enabled libraries, fix
> all consumers, *then* unmask that whole shebang at once.
We tried that. But in the end, it ended up masking new versions
of a whole lot of libraries waiting for remaining maintainers'
approval. And the maintainers that opposed the idea now complained that
it caused the packages to be masked long...
Feel free to convert all libraries, fix all consumers etc. We couldn't
achieve that with our manpower.
> Well, discussing it properly would also maybe have been a good idea, but
> since this is now getting unilaterally hammered in it's mostly about
> damage limitation now ...
And how is it possible to discuss anything properly in Gentoo?
On the mailing list where any serious thread is ignored, and silly
things and flamebaits are forked into three-four different, off-topic
threads like this one?
Don't tell me I didn't try to discuss it, that I didn't try to get
feedback. It's easy to complain almost one and a half year after
the original thread. Of course, AFAIR that thread went into the usual
'this seems like a shortened dup of what we were doing, you should
rather work for us'.
> > Note also that setting ABI_X86=32 globally isn't how it's supposed to
> > be used; the point of this flag is for dependency resolution when a
> > particular package requires it (ie, top-level package depends on
> > app-cat/dep[abi_x86_32], portage --autounmask-write sets the necessary
> > changes to /etc/portage/package.use). But that's neither here nor there.
> >
> I find that quite silly ...
You *can* set it globally. But it's going to give you more 32-bit stuff
than you will ever use, so waste your time and space. We try to support
both the 'lazy' user and one wanting fine-grained control over packages.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
