[Exherbo-dev] Multilib branch now merged
Bo Ørsted Andresen
zlin at exherbo.org
Sun Jan 8 15:43:30 GMT 2012
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 02:40:46PM +0000, David Leverton wrote:
> On 7 January 2012 22:44, Bo Ørsted Andresen <zlin at exherbo.org> wrote:
> > I suppose an exlib could use something like:
> > myexparam multibuild_options="multibuild_c: 32 64"
> > MYOPTIONS="( $(exparam multibuild_options) )"
> Again, I'm not sure if it makes sense to make it as generic as that -
> other things than C will probably add the options in their own
> language-specific exlib anyway, and they'll need to have their own
> rules for declaring which versions of the language the package is
> compatible with. I'm starting to think we should maybe have an exlib
> specifically for C multilib.
> > The reason we haven't done it before is because adding options in an
> > exlib can't be overridden in special cases. I.e. without an exparam.
> > And also adding the options to MYOPTIONS wasn't any harder than
> > requiring an extra exlib. I suppose that changes if it starts adding
> > restrictions to the options.
> I'm a bit unhappy with duplicating the list of ABIs in every library
> exheres. MIPS has 3, and for x86 there's
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI (an exquisitely stupid name, but
> it seems like a good idea in principle), so if we want to support
> those in future we'd need to edit every exheres the way it is now.
So is it an all or nothing sort of thing? Either it's a data only
package or it supports all C ABIs that we support at any given time?
The advantage of having each exheres specify which ABIs it supports is
that we can add only the ABIs we actually tested with that specific
> > We originally wanted to test having Paludis add those (?) dependencies
> > to everything automagically. With (?) it would apply only to packages
> > that have multibuild options.
> > If we're never going to do that it makes sense to convert to (-) though.
> > But some of the current (?) dependencies really haven't been
> > multibuildified nor should they be, so whoever converts it would need to
> > fix those properly.
> Have we decided that we're definitely not doing the automatic adding?
> I think I'd be in favour of not doing it, specifically because it
> requires relaxing the dep checking in this way.
We haven't decided anything wrt. to multilib in a couple of years now.
Bo Ørsted Andresen
More information about the Exherbo-dev