On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Regardless, if our standard advice is "try not to use this automagic >> header wrapping feature, it can break autoconf assumptions" (IIRC, it >> is -- but if it isn't, it probably should be), then we ought to >> provide /some/ convenient means to get around it, other than sneaking >> those headers in through some kind of inter-abi back-door, in order to >> fake out the automagic (which is, effectively, what we require right >> now). > > The advice tells to do things properly, not to choose even worse > solution. If wrapping breaks something, random header install is going > to screw up even worse.
The matter of whether ebuild authors know how to implement multilib headers correctly or not is mostly orthogonal to that of whether or not multilib-minimal.eclass throws up obstructions in the way of a correct (or incorrect) implementation. I'm attempting to address the latter issue, not the former. Encouraging everyone to wrap headers, even, for example, in pathological cases where there is not, in fact, any header conflict between ABI's, to begin with, seems to me like incurring a cost (likelihood of broken autotools macros) with no benefit, I can identify, to end-users. Furthermore, the possibility of a superior, but more involved and hypothetical solution to a problem is, in my experience, not always a good reason to avoid a quick and simple solution, available immediately. If you prefer that I code up one of the more sophisticated approaches I mentioned, I'd be happy and perfectly capable to do so, just let me know which you prefer. -gmt
