Alexis Ballier schrieb: > just to be clear: I prefer the 1st patch but I would give the variable > (COMPLETE_MULTILIB) a more private name and document this is only for > multilib-portage and it will not work with regular portage. > >
Since you only argued against such implementation in general, but did not write any reasoning behind your choice, not much i could get out of this. I have been doing the second choice now, as written in my answer to Ian. For your variable request: I left it this way, since it is intended for end users, who use regular portage. In addition, it is a cleaner solution for multilib-portage, since i dont have to internally overwrite an eclass function, but that is just a side effect, since this issue never blocked multilib-portage. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
