On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:56:49 +0800 Ben de Groot <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree it is broken. I'm trying to do my part for the packages I > maintain. In my opinion all the recent multilib stuff should be > masked, but I don't maintain those other (x11) packages. So you may > want to handle it in a different way.
Part of what one is supposed to check prior to changing the visibility of a package is that it doesn't break the deptree ;) > > I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an > > agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail > > alias to monitor ft/fc bugs. > > > > If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in > > there for some small packages used within texlive anyway. > > > > We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have > left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am > not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't > cover freetype and fontconfig) and me. Ok; added myself to the mail alias at least. > > And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have > > > said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach > > > before I am happy to support this. > > > > I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at > > the step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing"; > > otherwise we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it > > in an overlay for several years to never give it wide adoption in > > the end. > > > > Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen anything like that. > Can you point me to those discussions? [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: public API for header wrapping [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support wrapping headers for multilib ABIs. [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] Header wrapping support for multilib These 3 came after discussing that multilib-portage does it, that it is needed for multilib, and thus should be done by an eclass based system. [gentoo-dev] [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported ABIs and maybe others, but on this last thread tommy clearly said that he was ok with the approach (under some conditions); I don't know what else you need as consensus :) Alexis.
