On Saturday 11 Apr 2015 15:34:10 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:22:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: > > And then portage did two things. > > > > 1. It masked emul-linux -- A move that I support, it's time to see that > > go. > > > > 2. It sent out a profile that sets variable ABI_x86 with 32 bit enabled. > > ALARM: ABI_x86 should be set in exactly one place: > > /etc/portage/make.conf and nowhere else. But, nevertheless, ABI_x86 WAS > > set which broke the profile because my system cannot compile 32 bit > > executables. > > That seems odd, I use several 64 bit profiles here and all of them have > ABI_X86="64"
Same here, but I do not have it explicitly specified it in make.conf. > > Right now my system is completely unusable and will need fresh stage3 > > packages followed by an emerge emptytree to recover. But before I can do > > that, I need a sane profile > > Can't you just set ABI_X86="64 -32" in make.conf? Is it even needed at all? If there are packages that require 32bit libs portage will ask for it, yes? > > and to know that the person who pushed out > > the changes to portage, obviously without any testing whatsoever, that > > broke my system so comprehensively is tortured, executed, butchered, and > > then cremated. > > That's quite lenient, you could have left the execution until > last :) Cremation will not leave a long lasting impression in dev circles, but first I suggest that you check the problem is not caused by something entirely different to the change in emul-linux. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
