1 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:34:47 +0100 |
2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Some people seem to feel uncomfortable with autotools-multilib, |
5 |
> because it depends on autotools-utils. |
6 |
|
7 |
To be honest, I don't particularly like autotools-utils, I tend to |
8 |
consider it a useless bloat. However, Michal's work on |
9 |
autotools-multilib is IMHO the right thing to do: If you use the |
10 |
autotools-utils syntax then it's trivial to support multilib without |
11 |
useless duplication of code. |
12 |
I still believe such an eclass as the one you propose is useful, except |
13 |
it's not for autotools (at best temporary for broken autotools based |
14 |
build systems): For example, I have no clue how to do multilib with |
15 |
waf-based build systems without going the 'copy $S and run the usual |
16 |
src_* phases in each directory for each ABI', which is what your eclass |
17 |
is abstracting I think. |
18 |
|
19 |
A. |