From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-65501-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 7F4231387FD
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue,  1 Apr 2014 05:13:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 47A52E0A99;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2014 05:13:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65FFEE0A90
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue,  1 Apr 2014 05:13:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hn18so4367581igb.11
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=cIkWXPRytYwC/XUeXT3RTd9ZZVagZa01tR1LzrkeBkA=;
        b=hiZbSY1uTgMrVw/pZrQsfQSvm4W2z3M9rf++ZyRE9627LkQgrSF1xA5LAqpexyLTlJ
         oxxBgnAeLz5ceUxpmQK42+bVRJQuY9O98L7+7oXd8xmN4d/2eNQv+iArLLKDJlyWT7E/
         MInuuG6AI8EuM1hiUNQ6jhvnw2Lhv5G0UccI2H48/UNab+477LCeJcqLNgvgtjbDVCjf
         dufnxJTnwTeKn7EgAgbc+uSLZ54tNMJzQtMXVPz+SDZ0+FTK2NSvqwLdICuRcZJWTp1O
         Hq6zBW9X4VcJT/vN4TR2BoCJk37h3eYf6CPsdXQqrbOLYVByGib/qnseK0q8mTf51lIz
         w6jQ==
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
X-Received: by 10.42.67.130 with SMTP id t2mr38974685ici.17.1396329185469;
 Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: yngwin@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.225.232 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140401001617.42fdc3bc@pomiot.lan>
References: <20140401001617.42fdc3bc@pomiot.lan>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:13:05 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: S5Gsilh8YCSAro2_N5se-peyaKs
Message-ID: <CAB9SyzRXkymQHae=QysHhBAbCs+MMSqir9QOGc8YQ35gJQfQ5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages
From: Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Cc: multilib@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: a4c0d9b8-cb8e-46c8-8967-b126ca57e73a
X-Archives-Hash: 8739bbe7de090ea1f84dda6250d0f0ed

On 1 April 2014 06:16, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on
> abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not sure if we're doing things
> the right way.
>
> That said, I have an alternate idea inspired by the ppc breakage.
>
> Your thoughts?

In my opinion your multilib approach introduces an unnecessary degree
of complexity, which --as has been shown here again-- is prone to
breakage.

It would be best for our beloved distro to revert all the multilib
changes, and try a different approach, or leave this prone-to-breakage
implementation to an overlay for the few people who would actually
benefit from it.

--=20
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer