On 1 April 2014 21:58, Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 1 April 2014 06:16, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > Hello, all.
>> >
>> > The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on
>> > abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not sure if we're doing things
>> > the right way.
>> >
>> > That said, I have an alternate idea inspired by the ppc breakage.
>> >
>> > Your thoughts?
>>
>> In my opinion your multilib approach introduces an unnecessary degree
>> of complexity, which --as has been shown here again-- is prone to
>> breakage.
>>
>> It would be best for our beloved distro to revert all the multilib
>> changes, and try a different approach, or leave this prone-to-breakage
>> implementation to an overlay for the few people who would actually
>> benefit from it.
>
> Speaking as a wine maintainer, the emul-linux-x86-* approach has many
> times been proven to be an embarrassing failure and the main source of
> pain and frustration for wine users. The sooner emul-linux-x86-* can be
> removed from the tree, the better for Gentoo.

I would like to see an honest cost-benefit analysis of the
emul-linux-x86 approach compared to the multilib eclass approach.
Because in my experience the latter introduces more breakage and
higher maintenance costs.

> I am aware of only two solutions to the emul-linux-x86-* problems :
> multilib-portage and multilib-build.eclass. The first requires everybody
> to switch to a new package manager. The second allows us to keep using
> portage, but requires library maintainers to add some simple boilerplate
> to their ebuilds for multilib support.
>
> Do you have yet another alternative in mind?

In my mind the emul-linux-x86 approach is more acceptable. I don't
have experience with multilib-portage, as I don't have a use case for
it. Another option, which seems to me to be more reasonable and which
has greatly lower maintenance costs, is using a chroot.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Reply via email to