Michał Górny schrieb: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:46:00 +0200 > Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>> Beside that, it seems to solve things pretty similar to the >>>> proposed way in multilib-portage for cross-compiling (which could >>>> also be adapted for multi-slot languages) with different wording >>>> and with additional work for ebuild maintainers. And since my >>>> proposal already uses USE flags, things would not change visually >>>> for users of e.g. ruby or php. >>> >>> I'm sad you aren't even trying to listen. Your attempt implies that >>> every single change in targets requires rebuilding all of them. If I >>> weren't using 32-bit libs, and now I want to compile 32-bit wine, I >>> have to recompile most of my libraries for both ABIs. That is >>> a no go for me. >> >> So you want to build a 32bit package, which is depending on 32bit >> libs, but want to do that without the needed dependencies? Please >> tell me, how that works. > > I'm trying to build a 32bit package and its 32bit dependencies. Your > solution involves building a 32bit package and rebuilding all 64bit > packages which happen to be its dependencies for no reason.
You should already know, that "for no reason" is plain wrong. Beside the point, that you can build just the 32bit libs, if you dont want 64bit ones. And you did not answer my questions when i asked you about maintainence of your suggestion back then to keep every target as a seperate package (which itself has its own disadvantages like common files and UI questions). Either way, my working solution might have some overhead, but is easy to control and maintain for both devs and users. If you get to the point, that you can show me your suggestion working with the main tree, it might be much more clear, what you actually want to do and how you want to implement it. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
