On 02/27/2013 07:27 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:14:38 +0100 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > What are the problems exactly? I'm likely misinformed, but to me it > seemed there is nothing EAPI-related there. What kind of spec (read: > pms diff) do we need?
E.g. that you cannot enabled/disable ABIs on a per-package basis. Feb 26 22:04:07 <hasufell> Tommy[D]: per-package setting is possible as well? Feb 26 22:05:19 <Tommy[D]> hasufell: adding the features to EAPI-6, you can do it per package too, yes Feb 26 22:04:40 <mgorny> Tommy[D]: when is it going to be available in mainstream Gentoo? Feb 26 22:07:45 <Tommy[D]> mgorny: you want it? i could switch my free time into it after being done with another recruitment Feb 26 22:12:02 <hasufell> what is the portage maintainers opinion on this fork? Feb 26 22:14:49 <Tommy[D]> afaik zmedico has no issues with it, also i dont know how close his look on the code itself has been Afaiu this seems to be mainly a PMS thing. And changing PMS is slow and painful, so no wonder people rather want to go for eclass based solutions. > >> 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. > > What are these arguments ? The IRC conspiracy is hard to follow :) > >>> 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. > > Again, without a summary of pros and cons and an old discussion that > died leaving the eclass solution as a winner, it is a bit harsh to ask > for a vote. > This is just my own view on this and NOT complete, Tommy[D] will probably have a more complete list what the eclasses currently lack and where they will fail. Mgorny will have a more complete list why multilib-portage is a bad hack. PM level: pro: - one-blow solution, tree-wide - _much_ less modification on ebuilds needed - will be properly documented in the spec, something people can rely on - multilib-portage has years of experience on ABI issues con: - difficult to maintain (please count the number of people who understand portage code) - slower fixes - still no merge into mainline in sight, could very well take another few months, if at all eclass level: pro: - easier to maintain (eclasses are generally easy understandable) - quicker to fix and to extend - solution is NOW available con: - more likely to break stuff as all eclass based solutions, because there are no eclass-APIs and no spec - needs much more modification on ebuilds, especially for weird build systems - not tree-wide, slow per-package migration