On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:38:08 +0200 Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > just to be clear: I prefer the 1st patch but I would give the > > variable (COMPLETE_MULTILIB) a more private name and document this > > is only for multilib-portage and it will not work with regular > > portage. > > > > > > Since you only argued against such implementation in general, but did > not write any reasoning behind your choice, not much i could get out > of this. you simply ignored it... http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/87862 > I have been doing the second choice now, as written in my answer to > Ian. > > For your variable request: > > I left it this way, since it is intended for end users, who use > regular portage. it's certainly not intended that way in its current state; maybe you believe it is or want to make it that way but the truth is that if regular users set this variable with regular portage they end up with broken deps and packages failing to build... > In addition, it is a cleaner solution for > multilib-portage, since i dont have to internally overwrite an eclass > function, but that is just a side effect, since this issue never > blocked multilib-portage. I understood this, hence the request for a more private name in order not to make your work harder...
