On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass > > > > change, but I'd guess the number of packages and flags is > > > > constantly growing, so sooner or later you'll be hit by this > > > > again and no multilib killing will help you then. > > > > > > > > I think it is more future proof to use the addition of multilib > > > > flags to fix pkgcheck rather than actively reducing the number > > > > of multilib flags to cope with its limitations. > > > > > > Then please do it, by all means. The reality is simple. If the > > > tool is broken, you either fix it or stop doing what you know > > > that breaks it. Being unable to do the former, and having no good > > > replacement, I'd go for the latter. > > > > Well, why is it slow ? IO ? CPU ? Did you collect profiling data ? > > CPU definitely. More detail than that, I don't and I don't have time > to investigate. So you don't have time to change 3 lines to add cProfile but do have time to send various emails and rework the entire multilib system ? weird. > > > > Also, remember that multilib is not entirely about skype or > > > > slack, this was made with multibin in mind too: for example an > > > > ABI may perform better than another one on specific workflows > > > > (x32) and it may make sense to use this abi for a specific > > > > binary (which would be manually built for now). > > > > > > No, it weren't. Just because someone found it convenient to use > > > the design beyond its original purpose doesn't mean it had a > > > different purpose. Besides, how many 'multibin' packages do we > > > have right now? > > > > It was, because portage multilib was doing this and claimed to have > > a use for this. > > I am not talking of 'portage multilib'. I am talking of > multilib-build implementation. If you are only concerned about the > former, we can surely drop those abi_* flags that are irrelevant to > it, can't we? I am also talking about multilib-build and its way of doing cleanly and replacing portage multilib. > > Its original purpose was generic enough to allow multibin > > to be added easily. The number of multibin packages is only > > relevant to show that this is not important enough for someone > > to step up and do it: Everybody can easily build anything themselves > > with the current implementation. > > Exactly. And that's why I believe having fast CI is more important > than DIY multibin. If someone can 'easily build anything > themselves', they can also add needed flags locally. It's a "little" more complex than just adding one flag to an eclass and cannot really be done with an overlay; in the end, this requires to fork gentoo.git more or less.
