On Saturday 11 Apr 2015 15:34:10 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:22:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote:
> > And then portage did two things.
> > 
> > 1. It masked emul-linux -- A move that I support, it's time to see that
> > go.
> > 
> > 2. It sent out a profile that sets variable ABI_x86 with 32 bit enabled.
> > ALARM: ABI_x86 should be set in exactly one place:
> > /etc/portage/make.conf and nowhere else. But, nevertheless, ABI_x86 WAS
> > set which broke the profile because my system cannot compile 32 bit
> > executables.
> 
> That seems odd, I use several 64 bit profiles here and all of them have
> ABI_X86="64"

Same here, but I do not have it explicitly specified it in make.conf.


> > Right now my system is completely unusable and will need fresh stage3
> > packages followed by an emerge emptytree to recover. But before I can do
> > that, I need a sane profile
> 
> Can't you just set ABI_X86="64 -32" in make.conf?

Is it even needed at all?

If there are packages that require 32bit libs portage will ask for it, yes?


> > and to know that the person who pushed out
> > the changes to portage, obviously without any testing whatsoever, that
> > broke my system so comprehensively is tortured, executed, butchered, and
> > then cremated.
> 
> That's quite lenient, you could have left the execution until
> last :)

Cremation will not leave a long lasting impression in dev circles, but first I 
suggest that you check the problem is not caused by something entirely 
different to the change in emul-linux.

-- 
Regards,
Mick