On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:41:07 +0100 Alexis Ballier <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd prefer the useflag names for the sake of unicity, but I'm not sure
> I understand why and how multilib-portage needs it.
Well, I mostly thought that if we were to introduce that information,
multilib-portage could use it as well rather than expecting
the information to be duplicated for the sake of it.
Not that I see a good reason for multilib-portage to work-around our
multilib but they like it.
> What will multilib-portage uses it for ? If that's to gather and use
> its information to restrict some ABIs, then I assume you will have
> something like 'if multilib-portage then dont do anything multilib' in
> the eclass; well, you can very well export a variable translating the
> useflag names to abi names that multilib-portage can use too. I'm not
> sure you need the mapping on the profiles.
Well, right now multilib-portage is using the 'fallback' mechanism
in the eclass (the same as used on non-multilib arches). They mask all
the multilib flags and build the package one ABI at a time. The foreach
loop does not find any enabled flag and uses ${ABI:-${DEFAULT_ABI}}.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
