Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

[Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > 
> >> The other thing is:
> >> We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution
> >> (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until
> >> that conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's
> >> what I actually think makes sense here).
> >> I understand both sides and somehow find it appealing to have a
> >> quicker solution, but since this could damage years of work on a
> >> portage fork I think we should slow down here.
> > 
> > except there _has_ been a discussion:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80330
> > 
> > where, at least for me, it appeared that the eclass solution was the
> > right way and portage-multilib had its defects that could not be
> > solved without such an eclass solution.
> 
> I don't even know multilib-portage (think is this way around) that
> detailed myself, but Tommy[D] claims that some of those problems will
> be solved in EAPI=6 and that he is willing to work on the spec.

What are the problems exactly? I'm likely misinformed, but to me it
seemed there is nothing EAPI-related there. What kind of spec (read:
pms diff) do we need?

> The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument
> yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear.

What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :)

> > Long story short: portage-multilib does not handle deps needing
> > multilib and deps not needing them. Only packages maintainers know
> > that, you cannot guess it at the PM level. Doing unpack twice, while
> > bearable, is also suboptimal. portage-multilib already disables its
> > multilib support for multilib-enabled packages, thus there is not
> > even a conflict there.
> > 
> 
> It still does not make sense to work in two different directions,
> imo. I was supporting the eclass idea myself by proposing
> autotools-multilib-minimal.eclass, but I think this should be voted
> on, so we don't duplicate work.

Again, without a summary of pros and cons and an old discussion that
died leaving the eclass solution as a winner, it is a bit harsh to ask
for a vote.

I like to see multilib-portage as the temporary, available today,
solution and eclass based stuff as the long term and clean solution.

Alexis.