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 8843D1387FD for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:14:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD932E0B39; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4F74E0B2C for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id tp5so10011862ieb.26 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 02:14:03 -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=w6fqnCCAz9glpe+NxHJtEpcQbCZRh8Qjd7GJ1Ipt+Kc=; b=QgO7sbadqFB4VfnQxUWOEACma10ze89gJwLXtP4bJPch2GHdjcsaa6XhQkW65tvai4 Wz9ElkNz/bsftvabOicxlWt0R4EIb7qtDEzOE+L+qdr//ftPoBRiy0AwbC4IPg3MVVK2 IgMlpVQVyyChP55CDIrNykkwEc8q7zWO67F5eDEbP9A9uvZxpW1v++hAN14iOJ/g7L3s 9qvC8jwKzQoGQY9iq8+M8/sKdImtFtWpd2N1rZh0x2F0VnDCS1W3C0bLkvJr8INMd2p5 /asechSh+4jHX9qlK93nCTEJXkBt+A3gFnpdZF2WD0mSrG2l6qU6k65LicVGir9Oiiac Ma/w== 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 X-Received: by 10.42.27.136 with SMTP id j8mr419846icc.69.1396430042993; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 02:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.225.232 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 02:14:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1396360717.20406.12.camel@rook> References: <20140401001617.42fdc3bc@pomiot.lan> <1396360717.20406.12.camel@rook> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:14:02 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0i3KAABU-apdyM2UfggBtG2cVCE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages From: Ben de Groot To: gentoo-dev Cc: multilib@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 94d453bd-8154-4001-9cba-ee9c13b6b33c X-Archives-Hash: 8f1620f3a549689f83add82ce2481137 On 1 April 2014 21:58, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> On 1 April 2014 06:16, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny 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. > > Speaking as a wine maintainer, the emul-linux-x86-* approach has many > times been proven to be an embarrassing failure and the main source of > pain and frustration for wine users. The sooner emul-linux-x86-* can be > removed from the tree, the better for Gentoo. I would like to see an honest cost-benefit analysis of the emul-linux-x86 approach compared to the multilib eclass approach. Because in my experience the latter introduces more breakage and higher maintenance costs. > I am aware of only two solutions to the emul-linux-x86-* problems : > multilib-portage and multilib-build.eclass. The first requires everybody > to switch to a new package manager. The second allows us to keep using > portage, but requires library maintainers to add some simple boilerplate > to their ebuilds for multilib support. > > Do you have yet another alternative in mind? In my mind the emul-linux-x86 approach is more acceptable. I don't have experience with multilib-portage, as I don't have a use case for it. Another option, which seems to me to be more reasonable and which has greatly lower maintenance costs, is using a chroot. --=20 Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer