Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] autotools-multilib: wrapper eclass for multilib builds.

[Alexis Ballier]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:32:14 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:17:58 -0300
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:31:25 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:47:44 -0300
> > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:21:20 +0200
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:46:02 -0300
> > > > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:24:46 +0200
> > > > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is a simple eclass using autotools out-of-source
> > > > > > > builds to build packages for multiple ABIs when multilib
> > > > > > > is supported.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to some extent, can't you do the same by unpacking twice to
> > > > > > different $S and calling src_prepare/compile/install
> > > > > > instead of their autotools-utils counterpart with tweaked
> > > > > > $S so that it works with almost every ebuild ?
> > > > >
> > > > > That would make this solution inefficient.
> > > >
> > > > Why ?
> > >
> > > Because it introduces unnecessarily copying files around.
> >
> > cp -l ? I can live with that.
>
> Can you guarantee that the build system won't modify any file
> in the source tree?

You can add it as a requirement. Your eclass implicitly requires it
anyway.

> So it's back to optimized solution vs bad, universal solution.

or rather writing multilib support for every package vs. using what
ebuilds already offer you: a common API for building every package.