| 1 |
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:21:20 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:46:02 -0300 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:24:46 +0200 |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > It is a simple eclass using autotools out-of-source builds to |
| 11 |
> > > build packages for multiple ABIs when multilib is supported. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > to some extent, can't you do the same by unpacking twice to |
| 15 |
> > different $S and calling src_prepare/compile/install instead of |
| 16 |
> > their autotools-utils counterpart with tweaked $S so that it works |
| 17 |
> > with almost every ebuild ? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That would make this solution inefficient. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Why ? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> The good solutions should |
| 24 |
> not be made ugly to support corner cases. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You are tying support to one specific build system, and one specific |
| 27 |
usage within ebuilds. That is what I would call a corner case :) |
| 28 |
Ebuilds already define a standardized way of building packages, why not |
| 29 |
use this directly ? |
| 30 |
I'm not saying your proposal is useless, it is indeed more efficient |
| 31 |
than a generic one, but rather that a generic solution is neither much |
| 32 |
more complicated nor that inefficient in comparison. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> > -- this really starts to resemble multilib portage :) |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> I've said already that multilib is a thing which could be done by |
| 38 |
> eclasses and doesn't need making PM scary. And Tommy says that |
| 39 |
> multilib-portage handles packages having IUSE=multilib fine. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I agree with that, it also has two main advantages over multilib |
| 42 |
portage: it can be used right now and ensures that packages have their |
| 43 |
multilib builds tested before exposing it to users. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
A. |
Archives