On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:01:05 +0100 Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb: > > Hello, > > > > There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be > > a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it. > > > > The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib which is not really > > expressive and poor. What I would go for is a clear variable specifying > > which targets package is built for. > > > > > > This raises the following questions: > > > > 1) do we want the default ABI to be switchable? > > > > 2) do we want irrelevant ABIs to be visible to emerge users? > > > > By 2) I mean: do we want the users to see stuff like: > > > > MULTILIB_ABIS="amd64_abi1 amd64_abi2 -amd64_abi3 (-ppc64_abi1) > > (-ppc64_abi2) (-ppc64_abi3) ..." > > > > or just the relevant part. > > > > To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags than > > using USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. If we want to use that, we'd have to split > > the flags per-arch, i.e. have: > > > > MULTILIB_AMD64="abi1 abi2 abi3" > > MULTILIB_PPC64="abi1 abi2 abi3" > > > > with appropriate USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN set by profiles. > > > > > > What are your thoughts? Which arches would like to use multilib? What > > names for ABIs do you suggest? > > > > So you want to re-implement multilib-portage in an eclass without the > additional benefits a package-manager level implementation has? Could you stay on topic, please? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
