В письме от 23 января 2013 08:03:56 пользователь Alexis Ballier написал: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:24:26 +0100 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300 > > > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags > > > > than using USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. If we want to use that, we'd have > > > > > > > > to split the flags per-arch, i.e. have: > > > > MULTILIB_AMD64="abi1 abi2 abi3" > > > > MULTILIB_PPC64="abi1 abi2 abi3" > > > > > > > > with appropriate USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN set by profiles. > > > > > > I don't like that at all. > > > I'd go for ABI= the union of all the MULTILIB_ABIS variables (if > > > there is no name collision) > > > we certainly want skype to depend on libitneeds[abi_x86], not > > > 'amd64? ( libitneeds[abi_amd64_x86] ) x86? ( libitneeds )' > > > > Just a quick idea. > > > > How would you feel about abi_x86_32? (similarly _64, _x32) > > > > That would be almost natural names with the trick variable being > > ABI_X86, therefore having all the fore-mentioned advantages. > > > > The deps would look like: > > libitneeds[abi_x86_32] > > Sounds good too, I just would want it to be shared between arches that > can: amd64/x86/x32, ppc/ppc64, mips, sparc32/sparc64, etc. > You mean you will hide ABI_X86 USE_EXPAND on non-x86 arches, right ? > This would have all the benefits I think, very good idea :) > > Alexis. Shared abi names are bad idea. For example mips abis : o32 n32 n64 eabi x86: x86_32 x86_x32 x86_64 Actualy first three one are equivalent in their internal behavior. But i dont think that its good idea to have one name for all. Think about multiarch installs where you can have binaries from different architectures in one system. -- Best Regards, Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute, Gatchina, Russia Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics Gentoo Team Ru Gentoo Linux Dev mailto:alexxyum@gmail.com mailto:alexxy@gentoo.org mailto:alexxy@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru