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 5BC921387FD for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:25:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34092E0B42; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5DDE0B3A for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:25:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id uy17so6010188igb.15 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 02:25:37 -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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jB41Acmay7OC8cHFitKnl9tgJlXDGGuV+0TR2iO5d8M=; b=mXS0a/QTvSXRa8MAFZjtFLvQ5ENuFu2cfeDdB3PyKJoZvLKSzRtl12B3Be8Mn8PBQq ulLYXygoteW/x3eCagAnXWyPyJU0wcf+btPYBFTq+rV5nBzEWT0mffyCvfCS1Rdf+vsM 9Z/L/qfOq1claFg0qacTihXlyNP8YPW2AsWa3fUNYjGToPBt0orBnchhNpWndGjHySQJ PhtW7si/d9gx7hDxWgsEwk2RKZAaPdKhys67BA6lKhSssTkLXT8kmBQZelyR25aF+TN5 T0y6X7Sq+1cd6NOu2LiS0Js4EtA1zlgXjYSbQBb9e903QxuUO+mRJtvQYfxwGnbF+7Vv IhYw== 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 10.43.178.197 with SMTP id ox5mr32589910icc.22.1396430737753; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 02:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.225.232 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 02:25:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <533B4DE2.3070808@gentoo.org> References: <20140401001617.42fdc3bc@pomiot.lan> <533B4DE2.3070808@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:25:37 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: U1qc4m6d0GV8pU6xzpPDqw9JZ5s Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages From: Ben de Groot To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5e8c1bea-0dcd-4eff-88f2-9fc1628bab91 X-Archives-Hash: e948c4f2020a146076a7763a8cb7b52c On 2 April 2014 07:38, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 04/01/2014 01:13 PM, 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. > > And it removes any chance of writing ebuilds - I seriously have no idea > how to fix those things now. They are multibuilds, not ebuilds. This is part of the complexity I mentioned. I significantly raises maintenance costs, and I'm not convinced of the benefit. >> >> 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. >> > As a temporary stage they are kinda okish, maybe ... but ... > > the whole transition strategy has been very very silly and should have > been staged in an overlay. I'd even build-test them and file bugs - just > don't do this salami tactic of one breakage a day. > I'm strongly considering reverting these changes in the packages I maintain. I'm tired of having to deal time and again with multilib breakage. Either that, or someone else can take over primary maintainership. --=20 Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer