On 11/15/2013 03:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Ben de Groot wrote: > >> As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three competing >> solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want to go as a >> distro: > >> 1: emul-* packages >> 2: multilib-portage >> 3: multilib.eclass > >> I would like to vote for option 1, as it is the least intrusive and >> does what we need. If it is really felt we need a more complete >> solution, then my vote would be for 2, since 3 is too intrusive and >> more likely to break or complicate stuff for normal users. > > Option 1 is not a solution, but a workaround. It has served us, > but IMHO its replacement is overdue. Just to give an example, > stable emul-linux-x86-xlibs suffers from several security issues > (bug 471098, A1/critical severity) since half a year. That's not an argument for or against anything, that just shows that we don't even have enough devs caring for the "easiest" method.
Maybe ... dunno ... maybe that should be more automated so that a single trigger could generate the packages. > > Besides, distributing pre-compiled binary packages seems very > un-Gentoo-ish. Indeed. > Not sure why you think that option 3 is more intrusive than option 2. > What can be more intrusive than requiring a modified package manager? What's intrusive? We tolerate EAPI5, @preserved-rebuild and other package manager mods too ...
