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 2BC46138247 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A87AE09BA; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:01:39 +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 9C51FE0997 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:01:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.78.108.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7CC733E9CB; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5284BC18.5000702@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:03:36 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130426 Thunderbird/17.0.5 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: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask References: <20131113151012.04145837@gentoo.org> <5283948F.1000409@gentoo.org> <52841023.9010208@gentoo.org> <20131114061328.09136f6f@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20131114061328.09136f6f@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: f4c43be7-8cff-40ec-833e-11b40dde5388 X-Archives-Hash: 7e6fe492670af870987c4d19e788185c On 11/14/2013 01:13 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-11-14, o godz. 07:49:55 > Patrick Lauer napisał(a): > >> On 11/13/2013 11:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >>> It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is >>> {package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to manage the partial >>> transisition between emul-* and multilib-build dependencies >> >> ^^ >> >> Why is there a partial random transition with no roadmap, no coordination? > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multilib_porting_status > > That's the closest thing to a roadmap. So just "fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time" ... > So tell me, what you exactly want or need? Or is it just bare > complaining for the sake of complaining? Well, you accidentally cut out all references to TommyD's work again. Almost as if you don't even want to discuss a working proper solution that just doesn't have the ego hammering it in ... >> A more clean way would have been to target each of the emul-x86 >> libraries, replace one completely with multilib-enabled libraries, fix >> all consumers, *then* unmask that whole shebang at once. > > We tried that. But in the end, it ended up masking new versions > of a whole lot of libraries waiting for remaining maintainers' > approval. And the maintainers that opposed the idea now complained that > it caused the packages to be masked long... There's this thing called overlay ;) Once you have everything prepared commit it all masked. A few days later if there's no obvious bug reports unmask it and duck. > Feel free to convert all libraries, fix all consumers etc. We couldn't > achieve that with our manpower. So you just do it half-donkey'ed. Sigh. Maybe ... you shouldn't do it if you can't properly finish it? I mean, not like you cause a trail of destruction like the python-exec fun, and such things ... maybe ... maybe ... you need to slow down and plan more, and do your experiments in overlays. Have fun, Patrick