1 |
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
2 |
> On 24.5.2010 23.51, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 24.5.2010 1.54, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
>>>> ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases. hopefully |
6 |
>>>> this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows. |
7 |
>>>> |
8 |
>>>> if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the |
9 |
>>>> autotools.eclass change first. |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> I think any autotools.eclass behavior changes would benefit from being |
12 |
>>> sent to gentoo-dev for review first. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> if i felt most people had an understanding of how autotools worked let |
15 |
>> alone how autotools.eclass, then perhaps i would |
16 |
> |
17 |
> And what do you loose by sending them here? The devmanual text strictly |
18 |
> doesn't enforce it but strongly encourages: "Before updating eutils or a |
19 |
> similar widely used eclass, it is best to email the gentoo-dev list." |
20 |
|
21 |
so prove me wrong and post some useful feedback on the change. i'm |
22 |
simply being realistic. |
23 |
sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98 |
24 |
-mike |