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

[Olivier Crete <tester@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 13:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 21 August 2006 10:29, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> why ?  this is what blockers are for

Will we make emul-x86-gtk-libs block gtk+? We dont have use based
deps/blockers... how long will it take before we have API/arch based
ones. In my humble opinion, keeping that stuff in emul is much better,
in the same way as we would install binary packages in /opt and
not /usr.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list