[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Michał Górny]

Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is
likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
---
 gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass b/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
index fe6372d..d4e0f77 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
@@ -34,6 +34,18 @@ EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_configure src_compile src_test src_install
 
 IUSE=multilib
 
+# @ECLASS-VARIABLE: MULTILIB_USEDEP
+# @DESCRIPTION:
+# The USE-dependency to be used on dependencies (libraries) needing
+# to support multilib as well.
+#
+# Example use:
+# @CODE
+# RDEPEND="dev-libs/libfoo[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
+#	net-libs/libbar[ssl,${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]"
+# @CODE
+MULTILIB_USEDEP=multilib?
+
 # @FUNCTION: autotools-multilib_foreach_abi
 # @USAGE: argv...
 # @DESCRIPTION:
-- 
1.8.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is
> likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
> ---
>  gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++

I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like multilib.eclass

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is
> > likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
> > ---
> >  gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++
> 
> I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like multilib.eclass

Yes, I was thinking about that. Probably would be easy to move
the relevant functions into it.

The name remains the question -- multilib-utils? :D

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is
> > > likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
> > > ---
> > >  gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 
> > I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like
> > multilib.eclass
> 
> Yes, I was thinking about that. Probably would be easy to move
> the relevant functions into it.
> 
> The name remains the question -- multilib-utils? :D

I'd say multilib.eclass; it probably doesn't deserve a new eclass, and
multilib.eclass is already what could be called multilib-utils.eclass :)

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1299 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future it is
> > > > likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
> > > > ---
> > > >  gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > 
> > > I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like
> > > multilib.eclass
> > 
> > Yes, I was thinking about that. Probably would be easy to move
> > the relevant functions into it.
> > 
> > The name remains the question -- multilib-utils? :D
> 
> I'd say multilib.eclass; it probably doesn't deserve a new eclass, and
> multilib.eclass is already what could be called multilib-utils.eclass :)

But that variable requires IUSE... and adding IUSE to multilib.eclass
seems like a bad idea to me.

I was saying 'multilib-utils' as with the common mistake started with
'cmake-utils', and then forked as 'autotools-utils' (because
'autotools' was taken, I guess).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:15 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300
> > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future
> > > > > it is likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > 
> > > > I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like
> > > > multilib.eclass
> > > 
> > > Yes, I was thinking about that. Probably would be easy to move
> > > the relevant functions into it.
> > > 
> > > The name remains the question -- multilib-utils? :D
> > 
> > I'd say multilib.eclass; it probably doesn't deserve a new eclass,
> > and multilib.eclass is already what could be called
> > multilib-utils.eclass :)
> 
> But that variable requires IUSE... and adding IUSE to multilib.eclass
> seems like a bad idea to me.

yes its a bad idea, but the variable doesnt require IUSE, only its usage
does.

I'd go for something like:

MULTILIB_IUSE=multilib
MULTILIB_USE_DEP=multilib?

and usage of MULTILIB_USE_DEP would imply MULTILIB_IUSE is in IUSE
so that later it can be populated by abi variables instead

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2002 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:38:17 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:15 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300
> > > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100
> > > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the future
> > > > > > it is likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like
> > > > > multilib.eclass
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, I was thinking about that. Probably would be easy to move
> > > > the relevant functions into it.
> > > > 
> > > > The name remains the question -- multilib-utils? :D
> > > 
> > > I'd say multilib.eclass; it probably doesn't deserve a new eclass,
> > > and multilib.eclass is already what could be called
> > > multilib-utils.eclass :)
> > 
> > But that variable requires IUSE... and adding IUSE to multilib.eclass
> > seems like a bad idea to me.
> 
> yes its a bad idea, but the variable doesnt require IUSE, only its usage
> does.
> 
> I'd go for something like:
> 
> MULTILIB_IUSE=multilib
> MULTILIB_USE_DEP=multilib?
> 
> and usage of MULTILIB_USE_DEP would imply MULTILIB_IUSE is in IUSE
> so that later it can be populated by abi variables instead

I wanted to add the multilib_foreach_abi() there as well, and I think
it really deserves its own eclass. And if it's own eclass where every
func relies on IUSE, no point in hacking it over.

It's just the question of name, I believe. multilib-base?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support MULTILIB_USEDEP for writing USE-deps.

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:47:19 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:38:17 -0300
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:15 +0100
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:42:27 -0300
> > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:25:16 +0100
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0300
> > > > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:31:46 +0100
> > > > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Although the eclass does 'multilib?' only now, in the
> > > > > > > future it is likely to use more fine-tuned ABI flags.
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think it'd better fit in a more generic eclass like
> > > > > > multilib.eclass
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, I was thinking about that. Probably would be easy to move
> > > > > the relevant functions into it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The name remains the question -- multilib-utils? :D
> > > > 
> > > > I'd say multilib.eclass; it probably doesn't deserve a new
> > > > eclass, and multilib.eclass is already what could be called
> > > > multilib-utils.eclass :)
> > > 
> > > But that variable requires IUSE... and adding IUSE to
> > > multilib.eclass seems like a bad idea to me.
> > 
> > yes its a bad idea, but the variable doesnt require IUSE, only its
> > usage does.
> > 
> > I'd go for something like:
> > 
> > MULTILIB_IUSE=multilib
> > MULTILIB_USE_DEP=multilib?
> > 
> > and usage of MULTILIB_USE_DEP would imply MULTILIB_IUSE is in IUSE
> > so that later it can be populated by abi variables instead
> 
> I wanted to add the multilib_foreach_abi() there as well, and I think
> it really deserves its own eclass. And if it's own eclass where every
> func relies on IUSE, no point in hacking it over.

yep, it sounds sensible if you want to add more 'generic' functions
then, and indeed it's simpler to just set IUSE (not sure if it'd be
wanted in all cases but I can't imagine any)

> It's just the question of name, I believe. multilib-base?

-utils sounds better for utility functions, -base is better if it's
really the building blocks of most multilib packages; since the goal
should be the latter, I'd prefer -base, but then it makes me think
multilib.eclass is higher level than multilib-base, which is in fact the
contrary. Maybe multilib-builds ? multibuilds-base ?