| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 11.06.2017 kell 17:12, kirjutas Kristian |
| 2 |
Fiskerstrand: |
| 3 |
> On 06/11/2017 05:07 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Ühel kenal päeval, P, 11.06.2017 kell 10:00, kirjutas William |
| 5 |
> > Hubbs: |
| 6 |
> > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 01:04:06PM +0100, Sergei Trofimovich |
| 7 |
> > > wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > > On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:28:19 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > > > Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426262 |
| 12 |
> > > > > + mv configure.{in,ac} || die |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > > Looks good. |
| 15 |
> > > > |
| 16 |
> > > > -- |
| 17 |
> > > > |
| 18 |
> > > > Sergei |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > -1 |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > I think this should be handled by the packages, not at the eclass |
| 23 |
> > > level. |
| 24 |
> > > |
| 25 |
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426262#c3 |
| 26 |
> > > |
| 27 |
> > > The packages should either mv the configure.in to configure.ac |
| 28 |
> > > internally, or better yet, the maintainers should ask upstream |
| 29 |
> > > for |
| 30 |
> > > their |
| 31 |
> > > packages to fix it. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > +1, otherwise we will never be able to add/unmask a newer autoconf |
| 34 |
> > that |
| 35 |
> > doesn't look at configure.in anymore, once such a version |
| 36 |
> > eventually |
| 37 |
> > happens. |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> We can always patch the eclass at that point if that is still a big |
| 41 |
> concern, but I fundamentally agree with William on this, starting |
| 42 |
> point |
| 43 |
> should be fixing it upstream, so can start with a tracking bug on |
| 44 |
> affected packages. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
That's a complete useless waste of time, to track some ancient packages |
| 47 |
that don't get any upstream update anyway. The active ones have updated |
| 48 |
it long ago. And it'd be a joke to propose last riting for the reason |
| 49 |
of a file being named configure.in instead of configure.ac. |
Archives