-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:09:10 +0100 hasufell <[email protected]> wrote:
> multilib eclasses as a whole were a big failure, both for users > (enough examples given here) You mean those failures where they mix branches and thus cause blockers between the old and new approach? Those failures have nothing to do with multilib eclasses, but rather by not understanding Portage's complexity; it works for me and I don't see a problem, I don't mix. > for developers (cause it requires understanding the eclasses). Are you able to contribute anything without understanding any eclass? > You should keep working on the spec, so we might be able to remove > that crap some day. Maybe, maybe not; you are replacing complexity by other complexity, now the real question is rather where we want this complexity to be. Multilib eclasses make bugs explicit and thus easier to find and fix. Multilib Portage takes bugs away from the eclasses and ebuilds such that they sit in Portage; this can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it, but it however does mean that this need continued maintenance after this feature has been added to Portage. With the lower Portage development activity, is that a viable option? - -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSiPBTAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9QzcH/jS0X0nSCZRhPXYbwRr6xuBg vD5XCOwAbNHsEVfTo8kPpscvXsej4DQvvsVDGtCJEXlhO7pS4n9ArTEeeihVtgBI hqycMrnr1cJ2IdT8KGNn+56WfgIQW9KP02gtZkfoClUzzT0kXr4zX1oVvHY7NLd6 CIFBIQHh4oUs1wHg7OkkrZeWzQJNTRs4Uws6FGIF4L3+durbvLdwmF1WN8YzayTe 6hHOWTEzAXVAeh+cnkhhaJyjmBlpUNqMNG4JZ5OO50vu18YbK5cPRvMdUws3Rsw4 NGFMaEna5JqMSUA5yevdDVzXtkZzqtZUymSFMxcm5Kt5oXPofo9zPIOh3/2tAXk= =n44F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
