On 02/27/2013 06:58 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> The other thing is: >> We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution >> (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until >> that conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what >> I actually think makes sense here). >> I understand both sides and somehow find it appealing to have a >> quicker solution, but since this could damage years of work on a >> portage fork I think we should slow down here. > > except there _has_ been a discussion: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80330 > > where, at least for me, it appeared that the eclass solution was the > right way and portage-multilib had its defects that could not be solved > without such an eclass solution.
I don't even know multilib-portage (think is this way around) that detailed myself, but Tommy[D] claims that some of those problems will be solved in EAPI=6 and that he is willing to work on the spec. The reason I bring this up again is that there was a strong argument yesterday in #gentoo-dev, so it seems the situation is NOT clear. > Long story short: portage-multilib does not handle deps needing > multilib and deps not needing them. Only packages maintainers know > that, you cannot guess it at the PM level. Doing unpack twice, while > bearable, is also suboptimal. portage-multilib already disables its > multilib support for multilib-enabled packages, thus there is not even > a conflict there. > It still does not make sense to work in two different directions, imo. I was supporting the eclass idea myself by proposing autotools-multilib-minimal.eclass, but I think this should be voted on, so we don't duplicate work.