On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:13:50 -0500 > Homer Parker <hpar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > And what did Gentoo get out of it? > > > > > > What I remember is Gentoo putting in lots of work randomly changing > > > things until things worked, and ending up not knowing what most of > > > those changes were or why they were done.
In the beginning there was a method...
> The end result is that
> > > there's still a random smattering of multilib-related mess
> > > cluttering up ebuild internals that doesn't actually do anything
> > > except cause intermittent breakages. Doing experiments is great as
> > > a way of understanding the problem, but it isn't how you deliver a
> > > solution. That takes a lot more work, and someone has to be
> > > prepared to do it.
> >
> > The hell? Other distos where still thinking of how to
> > implement multilib and we had it. I know first hand as I trashed a
> > system trying out the latest-n-greatest.. And the next round fixed
> > it. The -emul packages from then on along with the multilib profiles
> > have worked fine.
>
> ...so why are people running around demanding that reinventing multilib
> is the number one priority and has to be in EAPI 5 immediately then? I
> was under the impression that your fellow developers don't consider the
> -emul packages to be an adequate solution. If that isn't the case, and
> the existing mechanism is in fact fine as you claim, then great, we can
> ignore multilib from an EAPI perspective.
And now it needs revamped.. I see no problem with re-investigating the
problem to make it better/easier/whatever.
> I can only go on what your colleagues are claiming here. I suggest if
> you're upset at the suggestion that Gentoo doesn't have a decent
> multilib implementation then you take it up with all the people who are
> demanding the PMS team provide them with one.
>
I can only suggest you keep track of your train of thought.. In the
beginning vs now are two completely separate issues. We were first, is
it surprising the method needs looked at? No.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
