| 1 |
Alexis Ballier schrieb: |
| 2 |
> just to be clear: I prefer the 1st patch but I would give the variable |
| 3 |
> (COMPLETE_MULTILIB) a more private name and document this is only for |
| 4 |
> multilib-portage and it will not work with regular portage. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Since you only argued against such implementation in general, but did |
| 9 |
not write any reasoning behind your choice, not much i could get out of |
| 10 |
this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I have been doing the second choice now, as written in my answer to Ian. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
For your variable request: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I left it this way, since it is intended for end users, who use regular |
| 17 |
portage. In addition, it is a cleaner solution for multilib-portage, |
| 18 |
since i dont have to internally overwrite an eclass function, but that |
| 19 |
is just a side effect, since this issue never blocked multilib-portage. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives