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 206AC1381F3 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C310E09EB; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:17:18 +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 2B799E0917 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (pD9E9E622.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.233.230.34]) (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 72E6133DF5A; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <517AA882.6050002@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:17:06 +0200 From: Thomas Sachau User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1 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 CC: multilib@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: emul-linux-x86-xlibs deps being replaced in gx86 References: <20130421214304.7b08fa57@pomiocik.lan> <20130422193032.186fe07a@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130422193032.186fe07a@pomiocik.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre OpenPGP: id=211CA2D4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2NGTHLWSGXTTSMMWWJPSN" X-Archives-Salt: 36dee420-ec81-488c-a7d2-4a110971f991 X-Archives-Hash: 7c74895cde3ce3222cc5c59b7ad0ed27 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2NGTHLWSGXTTSMMWWJPSN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny schrieb: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:21:55 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: >=20 >> On 22 April 2013 03:43, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wro= te: >> >>> The common kind of committed dep now looks like: >>> >>> || ( >>> ( >>> x11-libs/libXfoo[abi_x86_32] >>> x11-libs/libXbar[abi_x86_32] >>> ) >>> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-xlibs >>> ) >> >> It should come as no surprise that I am not happy with this. While I >> applaud your efforts to attempt to improve the multilib situation, I d= on't >> think we are quite at the stage yet where this can be pushed as the de= fault >> choice, as you are doing now. >=20 > This is an any-of dep, so it does not really change anything for > emul-linux users. I've taken specifically this approach to relax > the timeline for multilib attempt and allow testing it without the need= > to enforce it on anyone. >=20 >> I am also not convinced this is the approach to multilib that we shoul= d be >> taking, and I know there are others for who this is controversial as w= ell. >=20 > I'm afraid that so far the most negative opinions came from people > directly related to the portage-multilib project. While I value their > opinion, I'm afraid they are a little biased by the fact that we're > working on something alternate to their project, and which may cause > their work to end up mostly irrelevant. >=20 Really, please stop spreading FUD. Neither me as the maintainer of multilib-portage nor Steven as the original author of the multilib-native eclass have been telling you to stop your project, lied about you or insulted you personally (which i sadly cannot say the reverse way). The only situations, where you got negative feedback from me was in cases you did something bad (like moving headers into the libdir causing breakage for depending packages and additional work onto other maintainer= s). Additionally, i already wrote, that i am ok with an eclass based solution under certain conditions, so how you get to the conclusion, that i am against it is probably your secret. And finally, multilib-portage will still have its usecases if and when your eclass based multilib suggestions get widely used, so the irrelevance is again your personal view. You partly duplicated my work and need to be pushed hard to also add the features i have already developed and tested (like headers wrapping and binary wrapping). So i am rather amused about your behaviour and attitude to code/features already developed and tested in multilib-portage then anything else. ;-) --=20 Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer ------enig2NGTHLWSGXTTSMMWWJPSN 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 SeaMonkey - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlF6qIcACgkQG7kqcTWJkGfikQP/SmRtfNhxPZwhvuaOrI0cDW3X FndSiN/8IFY9ommEoxMvy/Ocd0VsAEO9VeLiWio5HCgZtV7tBsQpJbX8ZcclP36v YzdxHB1QzBp5YhJiFu8jfnD1k3hYkKFt8I0fWECaE/phnoSS2vh8zgirscS4wGIn 9hzsn2rbc0wTkpJPYpg= =99pt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2NGTHLWSGXTTSMMWWJPSN--