| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I actually feel that some parts of this is not documentation, but rather |
| 3 |
> "wiki". So maybe that's exactly where to put it? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The doc in the eclass should only describe the behavior of the eclass |
| 6 |
> and the main points you need to know in order to get it going. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> But it is not a strong feeling. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I think you're probably right... I'll endeavor to re-factor this patch |
| 11 |
and put the wiki stuff into the wiki. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>> +# it is often best to put multilib-minimal first on the inherits |
| 14 |
>> list. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> first? You mean last or what? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I definitely meant first -- the existing in-source doc said "last" but |
| 19 |
I thought that must surely be a thinko... unless my understanding of |
| 20 |
how inherits works is backwards -- the first, not the last, inheritee |
| 21 |
gets the default phase-function implementations wired up to it, |
| 22 |
correct? I suppose another assumption I have, that, if not shared, |
| 23 |
might be leading us to opposite conclusions, is that a majority of |
| 24 |
inheritors would want the default phase function implementations to be |
| 25 |
wired up to multilib-minimal...? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
btw, based on the same criteria you mention above, some of what I've |
| 28 |
said about the matter probably better belongs in the wiki rather than |
| 29 |
the in-source doc. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-gmt |
Archives