| 1 |
El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 15:57 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 2 |
[...] |
| 3 |
> > d) the previous point will also allow to convert go-mono.eclass packages |
| 4 |
> > without introducing yet another eclass for that |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So you're introducing a hacky eclass just because you're too lazy to |
| 7 |
> convert go-mono packages properly and too impatient to let others do |
| 8 |
> the work properly for you? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Would be nice to know what autotools-utils.eclass is doing differently |
| 11 |
that is showing this problem with go-mono.eclass packages :/ |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Only one question, what is the reason for us having base.eclass and |
| 14 |
autotools-utils.eclass? I still try to use plain ebuilds without |
| 15 |
inheritting autotools-utils.eclass as I usually don't need it, probably |
| 16 |
others do the same and refuse to have to inherit it only for multilib |
| 17 |
support :/ How do you plan to solve this problem? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I would also like to hear why that people refuses to use |
| 20 |
autotools-utils.eclass... because I don't have a strong opinion on this |
| 21 |
topic |
Archives