El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 15:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: [...] > > d) the previous point will also allow to convert go-mono.eclass packages > > without introducing yet another eclass for that > > So you're introducing a hacky eclass just because you're too lazy to > convert go-mono packages properly and too impatient to let others do > the work properly for you?
Would be nice to know what autotools-utils.eclass is doing differently that is showing this problem with go-mono.eclass packages :/ Only one question, what is the reason for us having base.eclass and autotools-utils.eclass? I still try to use plain ebuilds without inheritting autotools-utils.eclass as I usually don't need it, probably others do the same and refuse to have to inherit it only for multilib support :/ How do you plan to solve this problem? I would also like to hear why that people refuses to use autotools-utils.eclass... because I don't have a strong opinion on this topic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
