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 4EBB91381F3 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:00:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E1C0E0A8A; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F13E0A10 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from portable (AMontpellier-651-1-434-83.w92-145.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.145.61.83]) (using SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 861CC33DD33; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:00:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:00:37 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: yngwin@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask Message-ID: <20130422160037.75091692@portable> In-Reply-To: References: <20130419091632.D01152171D@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <20130419153043.30ffc50c@portable> <20130421165958.370a3b63@portable> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 47b9ca10-8aa4-40a4-836b-173c10c653ed X-Archives-Hash: 0d172bc8b5adab0dc783ec2eedbfc0c4 On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:56:49 +0800 Ben de Groot 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.