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 90CCA13877A for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) 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 ; 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 ; 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: References: <53AB007C.5070306@gentoo.org> <20140625204457.6d6ed82b@pomiot.lan> <7201525.QuAkliyKH2@kailua> <53B49093.5070303@gentoo.org> <53B500CA.4080609@gentoo.org> 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 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