On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Hello > > I would like to know what is "blocking" this from landing main tree in > the "near" future, as I reviewed: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg41737.html > > and looks like there wasn't major problems (at least commented in this > thread)
There are still a number of known build failures, tracked in https://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/portage-multilib . There are probably many more portage-multilib-related build failures which haven't been encountered yet nor reported. Also, even these reported bugs are not necessarily fixed first because they only affect us the minority ;-). Most everything is easy to debug and as simple as replacing calls to $(LD) in poorly-written Makefileswith with calls to $(CC), fixing packages which ignore CFLAGS (where we store our -m32) or LDFLAGS (where we now also store -m32 since one's not allowed to require buildsystems to call $(CC) with $(CFLAGS) when objects are being linked into an executable or library). However, packages which use qmake or cmake macros installed by KDE are more difficult to debug and there are other funny issues such as CFLAGS being stored by a library's buildsystem and stored into /usr/share instead of an ABI-dependent directory, breaking packages which use that library... ;-) Also, there are still some decisions/changes to portage-multilib which might be made The most recent idea discussed was: should ${ARCH} useflags (like SRC_URI="x86? ( http://host/my-binari-x86.tar.bz2 )") be replaced with ${ABI} useflags or should we rewrite a bunch of ebuilds in the tree to be multilib-aware? For example: Say we have ABI=x86 ARCH=amd64 Does ``use x86'' return true or do we need to use ``use multilib_abi_x86''? Do detect the true arch, do we need ``use arch_amd64'' or does ``use amd64'' still return true? -- binki Look out for missing apostrophes!
pgpRAKQKKTE2y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
