Re: [gentoo-user] libav and ffmpeg on the same computer issue once again

[gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com>]

2015-05-16 13:10 GMT+03:00 gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com>:
> 2015-05-16 11:55 GMT+03:00 Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>:
>> On Saturday 16 May 2015 09:26:14 gevisz wrote:
>>> 2015-05-16 10:51 GMT+03:00 gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> >        So, if I get no better suggestions, I will enable abi_x86_32
>>> >        globally and try to update the world once more.
>>>
>>> Lukily, this approach worked out. Currently I am updating and recompiling
>>> 199 packages but the blockers disappeared.
>>>
>>> >        If that will not work, I will remove the libav USE flag from
>>> >        /etc/portage/make.conf and try to update the world for the last
>>> >        time.
>>>
>>> Now, when everything ended well, I can accept that by the phrase
>>> "to update the world for the last time" above I meant that I was going
>>> to switch to other Linux distribution if this issue with
>>> ffmpeg-libav-multilib could not be solved in an elegant way, that is,
>>> without poking with every single package, which is really ugly.
>>>
>>> Luckily, everything ended well and I am happy to stay with Gentoo,
>>> but I should mention that, having such issues with multilib profile,
>>> enabling abi_x86_32 on per package base really should be unrecommended
>>> way to maintain the system and users should be warned about it.
>>
>> I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this.  On older PCs I would rather did
>> not have to install abi_x86_32 for packages that I don't need to.  The
>> granular approach suits me better and also aligns better with the light-footed
>> Gentoo approach.
>
> With this "light-footed approach" I had about two full-screen rubbish
> in my /etc/portage/make.conf file and kept adding on almost every update.

Correction: in /etc/portage/package.use

>> I think had you followed my suggestion you could have found that
>> by remerging half a dozen packages at most, your conflict would
>> have been resolved.
>
> I think so, but this is what I call ugly.
>
>> Either way you got a result, so whatever works.  :-)
>
> Yes, thank you.