From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SlRSU-0000PX-2Q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 21:13:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92C7DE077E; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:13:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06900E0654 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 797071B40E1 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FF0BD42.2070800@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:12:34 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120607 Thunderbird/13.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP draf for cross-compile support in multilib profiles References: <4FDC608C.8010708@gentoo.org> <4FDDC752.3080506@gentoo.org> <4FE0C207.6070302@gentoo.org> <20120619191644.7908fb03@googlemail.com> <4FE0CACF.4000401@gentoo.org> <20120619203602.GC4424@localhost> <4FEDBC23.70202@gentoo.org> <4FF03486.9020607@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4FF03486.9020607@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1cffe413-0ce0-4c66-b1b2-2691a706ea41 X-Archives-Hash: 1dcd3d8c8d8712b5174db73d55b934fc On 07/01/2012 04:29 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Matt Turner schrieb: >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> >> >> I'm interested in this because I'm regularly annoyed with the emul- >> packages and also because multilib is pretty important for mips. >> >>> If a package has dependencies, then those dependencies are required to have >>> at least the same targets enabled as the package >> >> That seems like the obvious (but perhaps naive) choice. What about >> depending on packages that don't install libraries, like x11-proto/ >> packages or generators like dev-util/indent? >> >> Maybe I just don't understand. Would these packages even have ABI flags? > > All packages do get the ABI flags (with the needed EAPI or via enabled > portage feature, which is currently in the multilib branch). > > If a package does not install anything ABI-specific (no headers, no libs > and no binaries), then there is no overhead, since it will just get > compiled/installed for one ABI, even if multiple ABI flags are enabled. For a package like this that does not install anything ABI-specific, does the package manager still execute phases for each enabled ABI, or is there some way for the ebuild to indicate whether or not its phases need to be executed for each enabled ABI? -- Thanks, Zac