Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:56:49 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I agree it is broken. I'm trying to do my part for the packages I
> maintain. In my opinion all the recent multilib stuff should be
> masked, but I don't maintain those other (x11) packages. So you may
> want to handle it in a different way.

Part of what one is supposed to check prior to changing the visibility
of a package is that it doesn't break the deptree ;)


> > I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
> > agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail
> > alias to monitor ft/fc bugs.
> >
> > If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
> > there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.
> >
> 
> We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have
> left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am
> not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't
> cover freetype and fontconfig) and me.

Ok; added myself to the mail alias at least.


> > And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have
> > > said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach
> > > before I am happy to support this.
> >
> > I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at
> > the step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing";
> > otherwise we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it
> > in an overlay for several years to never give it wide adoption in
> > the end.
> >
> 
> Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen anything like that.
> Can you point me to those discussions?

[gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: public API for header wrapping
[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support wrapping headers for multilib ABIs.
[gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] Header wrapping support for multilib


These 3 came after discussing that multilib-portage does it, that it is
needed for multilib, and thus should be done by an eclass based system.

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported
ABIs

and maybe others, but on this last thread tommy clearly said that he
was ok with the approach (under some conditions); I don't know what
else you need as consensus :)

Alexis.