Dnia 2014-05-05, o godz. 17:26:14
hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> Michał Górny:
> > This was planned for a while. The concept of 'best' and 'native' that
> > are not always the same ABI is confusing and mostly unnecessary.
> > Additionally, we prefer people using multilib-minimal phases rather than
> > multilib_for* functions.
> > ---
> >  eclass/multilib-build.eclass | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/eclass/multilib-build.eclass b/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
> > index 4a87af6..de6c27b 100644
> > --- a/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
> > +++ b/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
> > @@ -210,6 +210,9 @@ multilib_parallel_foreach_abi() {
> >  multilib_for_best_abi() {
> >     debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}"
> >  
> > +   eqawarn "QA warning: multilib_for_best_abi() function is deprecated and 
> > should"
> > +   eqawarn "not be used. The multilib_is_native_abi() check may be used 
> > instead."
> > +
> >     local MULTIBUILD_VARIANTS=( $(multilib_get_enabled_abi_pairs) )
> >  
> >     multibuild_for_best_variant _multilib_multibuild_wrapper "${@}"
> > 
> 
> I wonder if it makes sense to add a repoman warning for these kind of
> deprecations? Not sure if many people read the post-emerge output. By
> experience, not so many.

I was thinking about that wrt multilib_build_binaries but it seems that
in current repoman code, the check for each function is treated
as a separate test. I'd rather wait till someone adds a single test
with a list for deprecated functions instead :).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to