Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

[Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15/11/13 02:13 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Ben de Groot wrote:
> 
>> As I see it now, with respect to multilib, we have three
>> competing solutions, but not a clear direction which way we want
>> to go as a distro:
> 
>> 1: emul-* packages 2: multilib-portage 3: multilib.eclass
> 
>> I would like to vote for option 1, as it is the least intrusive
>> and does what we need. If it is really felt we need a more
>> complete solution, then my vote would be for 2, since 3 is too
>> intrusive and more likely to break or complicate stuff for normal
>> users.
> 
> Option 1 is not a solution, but a workaround. It has served us, but
> IMHO its replacement is overdue. Just to give an example, stable
> emul-linux-x86-xlibs suffers from several security issues (bug
> 471098, A1/critical severity) since half a year.
> 
> Besides, distributing pre-compiled binary packages seems very 
> un-Gentoo-ish.
> 
> Not sure why you think that option 3 is more intrusive than option
> 2. What can be more intrusive than requiring a modified package
> manager?

I concurr -- option #1 has existed for some time but it's entirely a
workaround rather than a solution.

Option 2 and Option 3, though, I don't see as having to be a competing
system -- to me they provide for different goals (most of which
overlap, but still).

Multilib-portage provides the ability to build an entire userland in
as many ABIs as can be supported -- bins, libs, the whole deal; no
matter if the in-tree ebuilds have an alt-ABI specification or not.

The multilib eclasses allow any ebuild that needs to, to depend on a
non-native-ABI library and forces any package manager to work it out
via use flags.

#3 works for everyone in a more limited scope than #2 (just libs,
generally with the goal of only including the few libs the in-tree
consumers actually need).  #2 provides users that want it with a
specific PM to manage their system, as alternative to the other PMs
out there.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlKGLzgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCrkgD+JNG1iF/oGh/5gXtqhTXlhHGL
A4tM6dbfZxmt793CTGwA+wercYN3gwb10GHyxs0bUMkime+cWDFpPphjPHU9BAtn
=BPc1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----