Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5

[Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1694 bytes --]

On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 13:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:11:27 -0500
> Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 08:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was
> > > done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really
> > > thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work... 
> > 
> > 	No, but paved the way for other distros as they had nothing
> > even close. I'm sure you remember back then. Don't be an ass.
> 
> And what did Gentoo get out of it?
> 
> What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing
> things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of
> those changes were or why they were done. The end result is that
> there's still a random smattering of multilib-related mess cluttering
> up ebuild internals that doesn't actually do anything except cause
> intermittent breakages. Doing experiments is great as a way of
> understanding the problem, but it isn't how you deliver a solution.
> That takes a lot more work, and someone has to be prepared to do it.
> 

	The hell? Other distos where still thinking of how to implement
multilib and we had it. I know first hand as I trashed a system trying
out the latest-n-greatest.. And the next round fixed it. The -emul
packages from then on along with the multilib profiles have worked fine.
Again, quit being an ass. Oh, and what I remember is.. You didn't
contribute. There was kingtaco, lv, and kuglafang <sp?>. So you're clear
there, you didn't have a damn thing to do with it.

-- 
Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]