| 1 |
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:01:51 +0200 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 24/02/13 16:17, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 6 |
> > Hash: SHA1 |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > On 02/24/2013 11:11 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> On 24/02/2013 11:06, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 10 |
> >>> Then don't put 'autotools' in the name. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> +1 |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > That would be multilib-minimal.eclass then? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Sounds good to me. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > ABCD also suggested something else: |
| 20 |
> > autotools-multilib.eclass -> autotools-utils-multilib.eclass |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> This makes sense too, autotools-multilib.eclass is misleading as it |
| 23 |
> embeds the "unrelated" autotools-utils.eclass |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> So it seems currently that some are against this eclass, some are |
| 26 |
> against the whole idea and favour multilib-portage, some are against |
| 27 |
> using autotools-utils.eclass for this, ... |
| 28 |
> Some people are already committing the eclass version changes/fixes to |
| 29 |
> tree, some are filing bug reports about bugs caused by it, ... |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> It would be nice if people agreed but I guess that is not happening, so |
| 32 |
> i'll be pushing this eclass to tree under name 'multilib-minimal.eclass' |
| 33 |
> if I don't hear compelling arguments for not doing so, or in case you |
| 34 |
> push it before me |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
No, don't do it. Or at least wait till I clean up multilib-build a bit. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives