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 1SlRnz-0006QC-Pj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 21:35:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EAF40E0746; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:35:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97509E0511 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:34:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (p548D3106.dip.t-dialin.net [84.141.49.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tommy) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 519F01B40E1 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:34:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FF0C268.2020403@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:34:32 +0200 From: Thomas Sachau User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120629 Firefox/13.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.10.1 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> <4FF0BD42.2070800@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4FF0BD42.2070800@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=211CA2D4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig86678BDB01BF20836EF84342" X-Archives-Salt: ada0f942-5fbb-47ab-9fa3-3dd82bff8c13 X-Archives-Hash: 999bd5c2326642e52dd432140dce826a This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig86678BDB01BF20836EF84342 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Zac Medico schrieb: > On 07/01/2012 04:29 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >> Matt Turner schrieb: >>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Sachau wr= ote: >>>> >>> >>> 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 fla= gs? >> >> 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 li= bs >> 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= =2E >=20 > 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? >=20 This is dynamicly checked at runtime, no need to modify the ebuilds and also no needless compilation, when there is no ABI-specific content. A more detailed answer at package manager level: After the src_install phase for the first requested ABI has been finished, the content of $DESTDIR is checked. If there is no ABI specific content, the other enabled ABIs are skipped and the following steps are done as usual. --=20 Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer --------------enig86678BDB01BF20836EF84342 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iJwEAQECAAYFAk/wwm0ACgkQG7kqcTWJkGc1oAQAuGVehoCuLw8kepX/GzDOF7kG j8abLUdpv1PIm+hypau8bR5cfsTCxMqDeuqqo8W4QQ0rs3kBp31gBVtIwOU2qb3M ZaXW4Zew1/N2fKY3ZB7V9N0+K3V6YFcoUP7vQrtNppV9oZNNaqDpfy+TOFKospM0 p6bpPZZILIXwfsyS6K4= =ys+U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig86678BDB01BF20836EF84342--