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 person working on this > > > was eradicator who has been mia for a while now so I'm unsure weather > > > this is ever likely to arise. Given that it looks like we'll be stuck > > > with these binary libs for some time yet then we may as well do as you > > > suggest and install them in a standard location to make building against > > > them a bit easier. I'll look into doing this when I next version bump the > > > packages. > > > > I still believe we should reserve the regular directory for the real > > multilib stuff, otherwise it will be very painful when we decide to > > move. And continue to put the stopgap binary packages in /emul. > > why ? this is what blockers are for
Will we make emul-x86-gtk-libs block gtk+? We dont have use based deps/blockers... how long will it take before we have API/arch based ones. In my humble opinion, keeping that stuff in emul is much better, in the same way as we would install binary packages in /opt and not /usr. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
