From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381291387FD for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:59:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 99478E0A63; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF91BE0A04 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.88.43] (unknown [96.241.16.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tetromino) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DEE633FB12; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1396360717.20406.12.camel@rook> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages From: Alexandre Rostovtsev To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: multilib@gentoo.org Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:58:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20140401001617.42fdc3bc@pomiot.lan> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-c1oUJ7DNPo30R3s6EJ9+" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 48a8ebce-2b0f-4e3e-9913-7bf932f25c1e X-Archives-Hash: 900af959bb724498ec59cb4988ea89b0 --=-c1oUJ7DNPo30R3s6EJ9+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 1 April 2014 06:16, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny 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? >=20 > In my opinion your multilib approach introduces an unnecessary degree > of complexity, which --as has been shown here again-- is prone to > breakage. >=20 > 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? --=-c1oUJ7DNPo30R3s6EJ9+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJTOsYfAAoJEKRDAQ9PHUhgp1gQAICGFCvjbADRB7vGpN+px2sc vA7xuhfgLXNEtbvk6pQWyuTvOqvMGy7Vfkl5rxU5vOiQF4SET1c1PemUVpFQ7FQA eR44a4oLjCZ4CwvxNW3vkAvwPTGSHoGnedjmebBPQ+vEhJL3foP87pu7vMA1XHqi HdmR0N+OYSIEOZvLKd/q95xY9xtpnlohhFan5J1+OMCq8YpHL3klziNFd1ds7lkT 9cTuXTwULT+JRI9/XLm8f05T3aGqJZOfXj/PT5H3kcY0c5C5IJJjC+WgsWmLQ7Se rqdl5Rqpv9EmchEPsRn0/pQ6O6pD1zfd4nwvTLlNgkp1BR4wvpoLFZgncNjDQq8w SCCc6GSso8EKal4W+rzkMVC/K2CF3j7jY32NYrhknvROwIBK2E++ABC85gjreHze r2FTxf/9MdicedeTofgbmgjekB8yWUM+NMtrEAQe4Vwss7vhm32eZVguMBiPS6Xu ZQj/hmwrb0yssq/nXFeb7WvB7pR1pL41/C6cqcC83UXz7BW5EYI1pY180Wy9m3Hr anGlxn6C0q+gECPn6bcfkDXVjafFXAbvKTkI7pqHEvKs8IY0V1hDpEGHKzjadwGM ilXCfk1Vj7lEMj8yVEkxn+J79OfkeuKs49wA1SKvCxLaF4djg7H1UK5KhLXjRTWd UnMkuvyXzK64GIqBlobf =TKcQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-c1oUJ7DNPo30R3s6EJ9+--