On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:18:12 +0100 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 17:58:26 +0100 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > What do we need that wrapper for? What does the wrapper do? Does it > > just rely on custom 'ABI' variable? > > yes -- it must perform some checks though. What kind of checks? > > Or maybe should it try to detect > > whether it was called by a 64- or 32-bit app? > > this wont work: think about a build system, your shell/make will likely > be your default abi's but may call abi-specific tools depending on what > you build _for_ not what you build _with_ That's one side of it. The other is that if it worked, it may be something really unexpected. Do you expect things to work differently when called by a 32-bit program? > > What for? > > in order to be transparent from the ebuild perspective. That depends on what kind of transparency do we want. I prefer being explicit here rather than assuming something you can't know for sure. I think we're starting to miss the point of multilib. Multilib was intended as a cheap way of getting things working. I believe that we should still consider it so, and keep it in cages rather than believing that the world is more fun with tigers jumping around. That said, I wouldn't say that making random executables in system work differently on ${ABI} is a way to go. That leaves the tricky imprint of multilib visible to users who shouldn't care about it. If they do, they're looking for multilib-portage. The whole 'switching' part of multilib should be kept part of our build system -- eclasses, ebuilds or just some specificities like libdir or pkg-config path switching. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature