-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 05/05/14 01:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-05-05, o godz. 09:23:56 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> > napisał(a): > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 05/05/14 04:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >>> 3. deprecates multilib_for_best_abi() since having two separate >>> concepts of 'best ABI' and 'default ABI' is confusing, and >>> mostly doesn't serve any real purpose. >>> >>> For improved consistency, we would like people to use >>> multilib-minimal and multilib_is_native_abi() tests if >>> necessary. >>> >>> >>> I will submit the patches in replies to this mail. >>> >> >> multilib_for_best_abi was introduced to deprecate >> multilib_is_native_abi though, aren't we going backwards? > > Honestly, I don't remember why it was introduced. I just checked > the commit message and relevant mails, and it's all quite laconic. > It was introduced as part of multibuild_for_best_variant(), and > that benefited mostly distutils-r1 for its *_all() phases. > > I think multilib_for_best_abi() was mostly intended to help > getting autotools-multilib to work properly. Now it is built on top > of multilib-minimal, and people are encouraged to redefine the > multilib_* phases rather than try to hack on top of > 'autotools-utils_src_compile' and stuff. This makes most of > multilib_for_best_abi() irrelevant. > > So, I don't think we are really going backwards here. We've > changed direction over the past year. We've seen what caught better > and I'm mostly trying to make things simpler. As part of that, I'd > like to remove redundant APIs and focus on supporting one > best-supported interface for multilib. At the point, > multilib-minimal seems to be the way forward. > > Do you agree with me on this? Do you have another ideas? >
Nope, this makes sense now. I have a sneaky suspicion that my memory had some cross-talk between multilib_for_best_abi and multilib_build_binaries, too... if multilib_for_best_abi was always based on multilib_is_native_abi, then I expect it will be fine to deprecate it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlNn2LEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDddAEAthcqIbx9/4TBM0rfqlDnXdk7 ZeFzOkHlUYv7xNGBoFMBALZItkBcJVO8VNQ1bvUYVf+j8W98JWmUt6MBgZdiZZm2 =a6pm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
