-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 25/08/13 10:15 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> workaround: add a variable, which changes the return of the
>> function checking for the current ABI (always true with variable,
>> without only true, when $ABI == $DEFAULT_ABI)
>
> Would this variable be set by the user, in profiles, or in
> ebuilds?
>
>> first version (multilib1.patch) directly changes the output of
>> the currently used multilib_is_native_abi() function:
>
> I think this would be very misleading. If a function is called
> multilib_is_native_abi then it should test for exactly that, not
> for something else.
>
- From the discussion on this that we had ~2 weeks ago, it seems that
'multilib_is_native_abi' is only used in the wild now (and only meant
to be used) to handle the cases where we want to say, build everything
for default_abi and only build certain bits for the others.
If there was a common usage that is important for the actual native
abi (for instance, some sort of check enabling alternate code in a
build system for a specific CHOST or whatnot), then keeping
multilib_is_native_abi as it is would make a lot of sense, but since
there isn't any cases of this I'm not sure it matters -- changing it's
functionality to essentially become multilib_is_default_abi() (whether
we rename it or not) seems to make the most sense to me.
>> second version (multilib2.patch) creates a new function, which
>> should then be used by ebuild authors to check, if they should
>> build ABI-specific content or not (using build_binaries()
>> function instead of multilib_is_native_abi() function)
>
> +build_binaries() {
>
> Name space pollution? Prefix with "multilib" please.
>
> + if [[ ${COMPLETE_MULTILIB} == yes ]] ; then + return 0 +
> else +
> multilib_is_native_abi + fi
>
> This can be expressed much shorter (and clearer):
>
> [[ ${COMPLETE_MULTILIB} == yes ]] || multilib_is_native_abi
>
> But allow me a stupid question, why do you want to build binaries
> for other ABIs anyway? It's called multilib, not multibin.
>
> Ulrich
>
Some users want to have a toolchain that is 64bit and the rest of the
userspace that is 32bit. Or, they want to just have certain packages
installed 32bits, to support specific use-cases. Essentially, the
want to have multi-abi instead of multi-lib, and so they want the
current multi-lib to be expanded to allow them to do it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlIbYR8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBG8AEAgcED8DZxyN0c98nMKvkCwNRG
zO6AcwF83oBL0PzOErsA/0gPMFZsX0+sKOXHo557L9X0Ha3S+9V8ZQVDWBVVL0Xk
=pvlE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
