From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-63580-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20901138247 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:27:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48CD7E0A6C; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:27:24 +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 53A66E0A44 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31C8933F198 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:27:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52862F38.8010707@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:27:04 -0500 From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> 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] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask References: <slrnl86l1s.j7e.vaeth@lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de> <20131113151012.04145837@gentoo.org> <5283948F.1000409@gentoo.org> <52841023.9010208@gentoo.org> <20131114061328.09136f6f@gentoo.org> <CAB9SyzTB3Nqd8bsFpRoFvgU-RHuB4W7CG76La6qu-WQ4O7kS0g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGfcS_kJM+0_BykpaXCcxRXi9Tw2jz=jx3Khsa6Ou_3uX6mUOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAB9SyzSqd1fW=v1NOjetHKCX0+WxHNgWreC5JqUsEZj4RaFL3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAGfcS_nrGjs4hw0udBFeCbHyNR4=x6GK_YNuTzNtm1gL+XKayQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB9SyzRyjeEfWLWLw82W+aZE1gDowgnbaKwRurMRR7V2kx0ABA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGfcS_ka=m0EjoSdTX2QgF4oN30zpUEm+C=5nTZxT-jBfzD4rQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB9SyzRX38zFT8ZKV+kNNfc2PnHqqisXSDUUbNvTVCQvdzDdrg@mail.gmail.com> <21125.51627.48994.939938@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: <21125.51627.48994.939938@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7bbd219f-7c31-4d67-b27c-03599fd1a5cd X-Archives-Hash: 78876400fff9078e61e969957500245d -----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-----