On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 22 April 2013 03:43, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to give you a heads up and explanation on what I'm doing >> today. >> >> I'm in the process of converting emul-linux-x86-xlibs dependencies >> in gx86 with any-of dependencies supporting both emul-linux and split >> multilib packages. >> >> The goal of that process is to allow peaceful co-existence of both >> solutions while the migration work is being and a smooth transition >> once it's done. >> >> The common kind of committed dep now looks like: >> >> || ( >> ( >> x11-libs/libXfoo[abi_x86_32] >> x11-libs/libXbar[abi_x86_32] >> ) >> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-xlibs >> ) >> >> And before you ask -- it works better than I'd expect it to. Portage >> just does the right thing depending on ABI_X86 setting. From my quick >> (and not thorough tests), it even seems to handle switching >> from emul-linux to multilib packages and back. >> >> There are two notes however: >> >> 1. well, the deps aren't that 100% awesome in EAPI<5 with paludis. It >> may not enforce USE-deps correctly, but a global ABI_X86 setting plus >> @world rebuild will make it work fine. but anyway -- whenever possible, >> please try to migrate packages to EAPI=5. >> >> 2. some of the binary packages may actually prefer versioned deps to >> ensure matching SONAME. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Michał Górny > > > It should come as no surprise that I am not happy with this. While I applaud > your efforts to attempt to improve the multilib situation, I don't think we > are quite at the stage yet where this can be pushed as the default choice, > as you are doing now. > > In my opinion this belongs in an overlay for further development and much > more extensive testing. You are now pushing this to ebuilds that may very > well go stable within weeks — unless I'm missing something and you are > masking these features / useflags on stable. > > I am also not convinced this is the approach to multilib that we should be > taking, and I know there are others for who this is controversial as well. > > -- > Cheers, > > Ben | yngwin > Gentoo developer > Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Do I assume correctly that this is a response to the freetype and fontconfig multilib bugs?
