On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:33:58 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> El dom, 23-09-2012 a las 11:56 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:07:30 +0200 > > Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > Matt Turner schrieb: > > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> It is a simple eclass using autotools out-of-source builds to build > > > >> packages for multiple ABIs when multilib is supported. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Michał! This looks good to me. > > > > > > > >> Use case: xorg packages, ask Matt. > > > > > > > > So the idea is that users want up-to-date 32-bit drivers for games and > > > > WINE. The emul- packages aren't a very good solution for a number of > > > > reasons. > > > > > > > > I'd like to add multilib USE flags to Mesa and thus its dependencies. > > > > I realized that almost everything in x11-libs/ could be converted very > > > > easily, which would allow us to get rid of emul-linux-x86-xlibs in > > > > addition to emul-linux-x86-opengl. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks like a shortened duplication of a subset of multilib-portage > > > features. While this wont hurt multilib-portage (since it does exclude > > > most actions on ebuilds with USE=multilib), it will mean a rewrite for > > > many ebuilds, which then again need another rewrite (or more likely > > > revert), when multilib-portage is accepted in a future EAPI. > > > > s/when/if/ > > > > > So i would prefer some help/support with multilib-portage to get it > > > accepted sooner, instead of this additional workaround for a subset of > > > packages. > > > > I prefer the simpler solution. > > > > > P.S.: I know, that users, who want up-to-date 32bit drivers for games > > > and wine do use multilib-portage, so we already have a working solution > > > for this issue. > > > > They will no longer have to do that. > > > > I would prefer if eclass way could be extended to packages not using > autotools too, otherwise, we will still need emul packages for, for > example, qt libs. If that would be possible via eclass, maybe > multilib-portage wouldn't be needed but, if not, we will still need it > and, then, would be nice if this inclussion for autotools packages > wouldn't cause more problems to get the "strong" solution land in the > "near" future :/ > > The simpler solution (eclass) looks fine to me, but it would need to be > extended to more packages than autotools based ones to let it replace > portage-multilib/emul packages Qt uses cmake, doesn't it? I don't mind having cmake-multilib as well? We could probably move the foreach_abi() function to some more common eclass, like multilib eclass. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
