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 E5822198005 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:14:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7AE3E08DD; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:14:44 +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 B6A84E0683 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:14:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-5d823cfa.pool.mediaWays.net [93.130.60.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3954D33DEE4; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:14:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <512E4D0E.9070700@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130123 Thunderbird/17.0.2 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 CC: Thomas Sachau Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog References: <20130225222029.D84D12171D@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <512E3E06.8010205@gentoo.org> <20130227185824.08f0d035@portable> In-Reply-To: <20130227185824.08f0d035@portable> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0a4aebf7-3b14-4cf9-9af7-602a4a840d3c X-Archives-Hash: eb89e7d0d56be5970cb19dd53760f9ad 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. 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. > 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.