[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI: emul-linux-x86-xlibs deps being replaced in gx86
From:       Thomas Sachau <tommy () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2013-04-26 16:17:06
Message-ID: 517AA882.6050002 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:21:55 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 22 April 2013 03:43, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The common kind of committed dep now looks like:
>>>
>>>   || (
>>>     (
>>>       x11-libs/libXfoo[abi_x86_32]
>>>       x11-libs/libXbar[abi_x86_32]
>>>     )
>>>     app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-xlibs
>>>   )
>>
>> It should come as no surprise that I am not happy with this. While I
>> applaud your efforts to attempt to improve the multilib situation, I don't
>> think we are quite at the stage yet where this can be pushed as the default
>> choice, as you are doing now.
> 
> This is an any-of dep, so it does not really change anything for
> emul-linux users. I've taken specifically this approach to relax
> the timeline for multilib attempt and allow testing it without the need
> to enforce it on anyone.
> 
>> I am also not convinced this is the approach to multilib that we should be
>> taking, and I know there are others for who this is controversial as well.
> 
> I'm afraid that so far the most negative opinions came from people
> directly related to the portage-multilib project. While I value their
> opinion, I'm afraid they are a little biased by the fact that we're
> working on something alternate to their project, and which may cause
> their work to end up mostly irrelevant.
> 

Really, please stop spreading FUD.

Neither me as the maintainer of multilib-portage nor Steven as the
original author of the multilib-native eclass have been telling you to
stop your project, lied about you or insulted you personally (which i
sadly cannot say the reverse way).

The only situations, where you got negative feedback from me was in
cases you did something bad (like moving headers into the libdir causing
breakage for depending packages and additional work onto other maintainers).

Additionally, i already wrote, that i am ok with an eclass based
solution under certain conditions, so how you get to the conclusion,
that i am against it is probably your secret.

And finally, multilib-portage will still have its usecases if and when
your eclass based multilib suggestions get widely used, so the
irrelevance is again your personal view.

You partly duplicated my work and need to be pushed hard to also add the
features i have already developed and tested (like headers wrapping and
binary wrapping). So i am rather amused about your behaviour and
attitude to code/features already developed and tested in
multilib-portage then anything else. ;-)

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]