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 8C4771387FD for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:44:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5C08E0A63; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D807DE086F for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id im17so9659939vcb.23 for ; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=h0edDomVzXaXRJma08cu/4VJRYdFNTwq1oXaAeNIn3w=; b=Lip5+6TjlzNT/shAXClQDp9B1BMajAshqIZuFMslezvFChxANUowlYsuWtgAjK1OJ9 23YHNIloaUBzabWT5CV7NhIgRdzcjFv6LouTAAVTbSCJoBpOqgm/pnhGddL8i4Iefen1 oRfRZSKd3gBDMp9wbSwvIko7Rtl41I/RmAXjDsE9M3k9QMkShDFtD7Vy7QihXHp0q70A JRETqczTB0cP+WdGUo/cGDE15cEbgJ49BrZXTVSHm4+HSujnAD+/FsHs5PefhXOQktjF fzwyQKz3DN27cMyoRvgXGKHmp+SMNh1CvDzO2RGCOdzi6k0xWET2VABLxDWQNsojD76/ ed3Q== 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 10.220.170.202 with SMTP id e10mr1636518vcz.20.1396363437232; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.29.142 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 07:43:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1396360717.20406.12.camel@rook> References: <20140401001617.42fdc3bc@pomiot.lan> <1396360717.20406.12.camel@rook> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:43:57 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rK93Ai2DaBOVhMEUUNi5mHi1xfQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stable masks on multilib packages From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Cc: multilib@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: ed138cfe-a223-495c-9678-027387605538 X-Archives-Hash: 5f6658fdef47d186ecd0e49b2eaee090 On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> 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. > > 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? ++ I'm all for better solutions. I'm not in favor of abandoning solutions that work moderately well in favor of talking about maybe coming up with something better sometime down the road. The multilib eclass isn't a perfect solution. It will have issues in concept, design, and implementation. These will come up from time to time. I don't think it is productive that anytime any of these pop up that we end up having a discussion about just reverting it entirely. By all means work on a competing solution. Get it working and supported by portage. When the day comes that we want to endorse one solution or the other as the preferred solution we can have that discussion. Dirty hack or not the multilib eclass seems to be working fairly well in practice, especially considering just how big a change it is. The emul-linux packages were an even dirtier hack and those worked well for a decade. Progress can be incremental. Rich