| 1 |
On 02/24/2013 05:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:34:47 +0100 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Some people seem to feel uncomfortable with autotools-multilib, |
| 6 |
>> because it depends on autotools-utils. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> To be honest, I don't particularly like autotools-utils, I tend to |
| 9 |
> consider it a useless bloat. However, Michal's work on |
| 10 |
> autotools-multilib is IMHO the right thing to do: If you use the |
| 11 |
> autotools-utils syntax then it's trivial to support multilib without |
| 12 |
> useless duplication of code. |
| 13 |
> I still believe such an eclass as the one you propose is useful, except |
| 14 |
> it's not for autotools (at best temporary for broken autotools based |
| 15 |
> build systems): For example, I have no clue how to do multilib with |
| 16 |
> waf-based build systems without going the 'copy $S and run the usual |
| 17 |
> src_* phases in each directory for each ABI', which is what your eclass |
| 18 |
> is abstracting I think. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> A. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have no idea if it makes sense for this package (since it also |
| 24 |
installs binaries), but as an example I have converted dev-libs/serd. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And yes, a rename of the eclass would probably be appropriate. |
Archives