1 |
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:27:06 -0300 |
2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 23:46:06 +0100 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > Alexis, |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Following your remark, I have redesigned the loop to use MULTILIB_ABIS |
10 |
> > list to order the ABIs. This should ensure the most valid replacement |
11 |
> > order. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Great, that's better than what I had thought about |
14 |
> |
15 |
> > Additionally, I have added an assertion to ensure that DEFAULT_ABI |
16 |
> > comes last in MULTILIB_ABIS list. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I'm not sure it is a good idea: it is certainly safe, but this removes |
19 |
> the flexibility not to build for the DEFAULT_ABI. Not sure if it's |
20 |
> sane to do so or if there is any usecase either, but since get_all_abis |
21 |
> ensures us DEFAULT_ABI is last I don't see a need to double check it |
22 |
> here. |
23 |
|
24 |
Well, you are probably right. No point in being more strict than |
25 |
multilib.eclass. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Best regards, |
29 |
Michał Górny |