From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66477-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 90CCA13877A
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2B4CE0869;
Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15920E084A
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A82A33FD18
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.167
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5
tests=[AWL=-1.155, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id uDbnndLuSN2H for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19C3933FE22
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-dev@m.gmane.org>)
id 1X2cxw-0008ED-Me
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:06:04 +0200
Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:06:04 +0200
Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:06:04 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making a common sub-profile for no-multilib
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan$94f75$9ed7a215$a2f7c848$6221cba3@cox.net>
References: <53AB007C.5070306@gentoo.org>
<20140625204457.6d6ed82b@pomiot.lan>
<CAGfcS_n7wbApmDh9ACy2GOXoYSS9gU2ryWyQec+Y_Lu+tFOJPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<7201525.QuAkliyKH2@kailua>
<CAGfcS_kkhSpyqORQH2KKen2J4hm-+O2A9LiixJTCn2MMN6yiMA@mail.gmail.com>
<pan$6ce03$fcfdd97$b5b824ed$7c0b07f2@cox.net>
<53B49093.5070303@gentoo.org>
<pan$93a7b$49b3d035$39a407f5$773fbe07@cox.net>
<53B500CA.4080609@gentoo.org>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net
User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT d447f7c
/m/p/portage/src/egit-src/pan2)
X-Archives-Salt: 5034db2c-0794-4f91-8ea3-c533a561c6b0
X-Archives-Hash: 7513e0a0922fe16fa21ef5b57808dd02
Jonathan Callen posted on Thu, 03 Jul 2014 03:05:46 -0400 as excerpted:
> I did, however test when a package installs two (different) regular
> files into paths that end up symlinked, and found that portage does
> break in that case (as the only sensible option at that point is to
> fail, as something will be lost in either case).
Indeed, and good point.
I guess at that point it's basically a pkg-collision, except that it's in
a single package instead of two different packages. Too bad a package
can't block itself and thus handle it the way different packages blocking
each other handle that case! =;^)
That's why symlinking both lib64 and lib32 to lib isn't a particularly
good idea! =;^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman