Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages

[Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1450 bytes --]

On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 06:16, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on
> > abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not sure if we're doing things
> > the right way.
> >
> > That said, I have an alternate idea inspired by the ppc breakage.
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> 
> In my opinion your multilib approach introduces an unnecessary degree
> of complexity, which --as has been shown here again-- is prone to
> breakage.
> 
> It would be best for our beloved distro to revert all the multilib
> changes, and try a different approach, or leave this prone-to-breakage
> implementation to an overlay for the few people who would actually
> benefit from it.

Speaking as a wine maintainer, the emul-linux-x86-* approach has many
times been proven to be an embarrassing failure and the main source of
pain and frustration for wine users. The sooner emul-linux-x86-* can be
removed from the tree, the better for Gentoo.

I am aware of only two solutions to the emul-linux-x86-* problems :
multilib-portage and multilib-build.eclass. The first requires everybody
to switch to a new package manager. The second allows us to keep using
portage, but requires library maintainers to add some simple boilerplate
to their ebuilds for multilib support.

Do you have yet another alternative in mind?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]