El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier escribió: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:10:30 +0100 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly > > understand the issue with ABI specific headers. > > > > The problem is: > > a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel > > somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and > > fixing on your fellow devs > > b) just test such things in an overlay first and see it explode, then > > think about it again and ask on dev-ML if other people find it even > > WORTH the hassle > > agreed with that > > > 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. > 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. > > The lack of answer on my reply > ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/82740 ) made me > think that the main portage-multilib developer was agreeing with that. > > On the other hand, Michal has been doing the work and got things done > when portage-multilib has never reached mainline after several years > of development. So, while breaking the tree like the freetype case is > really bad, please do not use this for killing his efforts, esp. when > it is now masked. > If you want to start another discussion on the subject, then please > make a summary of the previous ones and start it (council will very > likely ask you to do it if you want a vote anyway). If you do not want > to, then please thank Michal for getting things done and finally giving > us a sane multilib support. > > Alexis. > >
Personally, I second this Alexis appreciations, I also highly appreciate how Michal is working on getting things done and I doubt he broke the tree on purpose (he has contacted me multiple times to ensure wouldn't be collisions in transition period with emul packages, then, I doubt we can blame on him saying he doesn't discuss things enough). He committed a broken package? Yes, but also masked it soon enough and is working on fixing the problem.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
