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 AC6E3198005 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5E04E08C7; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:06:04 +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 AEC05E0743 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:06:03 +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 1C31A33DC61 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <512E5916.4050208@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:58 +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 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> <512E4D0E.9070700@gentoo.org> <20130227192722.65a55ac5@portable> In-Reply-To: <20130227192722.65a55ac5@portable> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 21541a1d-3881-4211-9f9f-87067808ec01 X-Archives-Hash: f0854cbeada3aa3c322625f6db2b8154 On 02/27/2013 07:27 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100 > hasufell wrote: > >> 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. > > What are the problems exactly? I'm likely misinformed, but to me it > seemed there is nothing EAPI-related there. What kind of spec (read: > pms diff) do we need? E.g. that you cannot enabled/disable ABIs on a per-package basis. Feb 26 22:04:07 Tommy[D]: per-package setting is possible as well? Feb 26 22:05:19 hasufell: adding the features to EAPI-6, you can do it per package too, yes Feb 26 22:04:40 Tommy[D]: when is it going to be available in mainstream Gentoo? Feb 26 22:07:45 mgorny: you want it? i could switch my free time into it after being done with another recruitment Feb 26 22:12:02 what is the portage maintainers opinion on this fork? Feb 26 22:14:49 afaik zmedico has no issues with it, also i dont know how close his look on the code itself has been Afaiu this seems to be mainly a PMS thing. And changing PMS is slow and painful, so no wonder people rather want to go for eclass based solutions. > >> 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. > > What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :) > >>> 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. > > Again, without a summary of pros and cons and an old discussion that > died leaving the eclass solution as a winner, it is a bit harsh to ask > for a vote. > This is just my own view on this and NOT complete, Tommy[D] will probably have a more complete list what the eclasses currently lack and where they will fail. Mgorny will have a more complete list why multilib-portage is a bad hack. PM level: pro: - one-blow solution, tree-wide - _much_ less modification on ebuilds needed - will be properly documented in the spec, something people can rely on - multilib-portage has years of experience on ABI issues con: - difficult to maintain (please count the number of people who understand portage code) - slower fixes - still no merge into mainline in sight, could very well take another few months, if at all eclass level: pro: - easier to maintain (eclasses are generally easy understandable) - quicker to fix and to extend - solution is NOW available con: - more likely to break stuff as all eclass based solutions, because there are no eclass-APIs and no spec - needs much more modification on ebuilds, especially for weird build systems - not tree-wide, slow per-package migration