> Looks good, thanks for working on this.
>
> Did you have a pre-implementation call with anybody about this?
Julian emphatically supports the lucilleconfig elimination attempt, but I didn't discuss the approach with anyone, as it was straightforward enough.
> Just one minor comment - can you clarify the comment on enabled_architectures
> to say more than just that it contains the enabled architectures? As we had a
> property earlier with the same name but different contents I think that would
> help prevent some potential confusion.
Thanks for the review, Jelmer.
> Looks good, thanks for working on this.
>
> Did you have a pre-implementation call with anybody about this?
Julian emphatically supports the lucilleconfig elimination attempt, but I didn't discuss the approach with anyone, as it was straightforward enough.
> Just one minor comment - can you clarify the comment on enabled_ architectures
> to say more than just that it contains the enabled architectures? As we had a
> property earlier with the same name but different contents I think that would
> help prevent some potential confusion.
I'd considered it. Done.
> Do you need me to land this branch?
That would be great.
Thanks.