Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-25 Thread Herbie Hopkins
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 04:58:02PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Don't forget that this will require an update to (at least) eselect-opengl, too. Actually I'm not sure it would. eselect-opengl currently checks /usr/lib[,64,32]/opengl/ for 32bit opengl libs libs and only finds the emul libs

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-25 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 13:26 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 04:58:02PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Don't forget that this will require an update to (at least) eselect-opengl, too. Actually I'm not sure it would. eselect-opengl currently checks

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-24 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:43:13AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree rooted in /emul if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-21 Thread Herbie Hopkins
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:43:13AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree rooted in /emul if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease the pain of people doing multilib building, both in

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-21 Thread Olivier Crête
On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:43:13AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree rooted in /emul if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 21 August 2006 10:29, Olivier Crête wrote: On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full multilib fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this was eradicator who has been mia for

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-21 Thread Olivier Crete
On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 13:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 21 August 2006 10:29, Olivier Crête wrote: On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote: I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full multilib fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 21 August 2006 13:39, Olivier Crete wrote: Will we make emul-x86-gtk-libs block gtk+? We dont have use based deps/blockers... building for ABI is unrelated to USE flags how long will it take before we have API/arch based ones. you really think having users build ABI stuff on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Herbie Hopkins wrote: I'm not sure why /emul was originally chosen though it's a choice I've just gone along with whilst maintaining these packages. I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full multilib fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this

[gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
looks like your mail server ate this ... someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree rooted in /emul if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of portage it'd also

[gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

2006-08-07 Thread Mike Frysinger
someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree rooted in /emul if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease the pain of people doing multilib building -mike pgp0iUxwqWpVd.pgp Description: PGP signature