Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

["Olivier Crête" <tester@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1483 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:43:13AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree 
> > rooted in /emul
> > 
> > if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease 
> > the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of portage
> 
> 
> Mike, Sorry I missed you on irc yesterday, didn't get back til later than
> expected.
> 
> I'm not sure why /emul was originally chosen though it's a choice I've
> just gone along with whilst maintaining these packages.

It was chosen because emul packages are put in /emul on ia64.

> I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full multilib
> fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this was
> eradicator who has been mia for a while now so I'm unsure weather this
> is ever likely to arise. Given that it looks like we'll be stuck with
> these binary libs for some time yet then we may as well do as you
> suggest and install them in a standard location to make building against
> them a bit easier. I'll look into doing this when I next version bump the
> packages.

I still believe we should reserve the regular directory for the real
multilib stuff, otherwise it will be very painful when we decide to
move. And continue to put the stopgap binary packages in /emul.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]