Benedikt Morbach wrote: > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool > <compn...@compnerd.org> wrote: >> I think you missed one of the core points of all this work. This is >> intended to remove multi build for the C class. The use of multi build >> will persist, but for python, ruby, (perl?) ABIs, not the C class. > > Just imagine I wrote multibuild_c there. > >> Does something like `cave resolve -m cross -E i686 wine' not work for >> that? Yes, we would need to enhance the current label handling to >> understand >> cross. However, given that the previous should allow you to build a >> cross-compiled wine (as an example), I think that we can live with this >> for the short term. > > But all the build+run dependencies need to be cross compiled too and > whenever I did that, it installed wine to ::installed-i686 and everything > else to ::installed. > I may be grossly misunderstanding/misusing -E, but there doesn't seem > to be _any_ > documentation for it afaict. > (well not actually wine, but it's the same for everything that has > dependencies)
More that you're misunderstanding cross somewhat - --make cross causes the resolution as a whole to build for cross, so you're basically building a full Wine (and the deps) for i686. The -E is to cover that we currently don't handle multiple cross-targets being available, so you have multiple environments, each of which only have one cross-target. However, Wine is something of an odd case. Its buildystem _is_ rather more designed for multibuild_c style usage, although it can be used in a more cross-like way: see "Parallel Install of 64bit and 32bit Packages" on http://wiki.winehq.org/Wine64ForPackagers >> I think that we can have a slightly lower bar for the merge. My >> intention >> here is two fold. One, it reduces the barrier to entry, allowing more >> people to contribute towards it. cross has languished a bit as of late, >> and >> I would like to see that change. The second objective is to reduce the >> overhead of maintaining cross. There were issues that were introduced >> into >> cross due to merging. Having to maintain paludis and arbor is a fair >> amount of work. There is no reason to not also branch all the other >> repositories, which only increases the amount of effort required to keep >> everything in sync. > > Agreed on all points. If the above actually works I'm fine with merging. > I just don't want to break Exherbo for anyone who uses multibuild_c: 32 to > get skype, wine or something else to work, as I imagine that that would > upset some ;-) > > Cheers > Benedikt _______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list Exherbo-dev@lists.exherbo.org http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
