On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:38:17 -0300 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:15 +0100 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100 > > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300 > > > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100 > > > > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future > > > > > > it is likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like > > > > > multilib.eclass > > > > > > > > Yes, I was thinking about that. Probably would be easy to move > > > > the relevant functions into it. > > > > > > > > The name remains the question -- multilib-utils? :D > > > > > > I'd say multilib.eclass; it probably doesn't deserve a new eclass, > > > and multilib.eclass is already what could be called > > > multilib-utils.eclass :) > > > > But that variable requires IUSE... and adding IUSE to multilib.eclass > > seems like a bad idea to me. > > yes its a bad idea, but the variable doesnt require IUSE, only its usage > does. > > I'd go for something like: > > MULTILIB_IUSE=multilib > MULTILIB_USE_DEP=multilib? > > and usage of MULTILIB_USE_DEP would imply MULTILIB_IUSE is in IUSE > so that later it can be populated by abi variables instead I wanted to add the multilib_foreach_abi() there as well, and I think it really deserves its own eclass. And if it's own eclass where every func relies on IUSE, no point in hacking it over. It's just the question of name, I believe. multilib-base? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
