Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1578 bytes --]

El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 15:01 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 24/02/13 16:17, hasufell wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 02/24/2013 11:11 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> >> On 24/02/2013 11:06, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> Then don't put 'autotools' in the name.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >
> > That would be multilib-minimal.eclass then?
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> > ABCD also suggested something else:
> > autotools-multilib.eclass -> autotools-utils-multilib.eclass
> 
> This makes sense too, autotools-multilib.eclass is misleading as it 
> embeds the "unrelated" autotools-utils.eclass
> 
> So it seems currently that some are against this eclass, some are 
> against the whole idea and favour multilib-portage, some are against 
> using autotools-utils.eclass for this, ...
> Some people are already committing the eclass version changes/fixes to 
> tree, some are filing bug reports about bugs caused by it, ...
> 
> It would be nice if people agreed but I guess that is not happening, so 
> i'll be pushing this eclass to tree under name 'multilib-minimal.eclass' 
> if I don't hear compelling arguments for not doing so, or in case you 
> push it before me
> 
> - Samuli
> 
> 

Probably the way to reach higher consensus would be to have an eclass
for supporting out of sources building and make other eclasses rely on
that code, that way people can use autotools-utils or use new eclass
"manually" as they prefer :/

Anyway I don't think autotools-utils includes so much changes :|

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]