| 1 |
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:53:31 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > 3. copy elibtoolize logic to Portage, and make it apply implicitly |
| 4 |
> > > on econf [do we need to apply it elsewhere?]; disable explicit |
| 5 |
> > > libtoolize when Portage supports that. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Related to the above point, if you make it part of econf then it |
| 8 |
> > needs to be part of PMS and that's quite a complex beast to have in |
| 9 |
> > the spec. It has been suggested twice on this list (once quite |
| 10 |
> > recently) that the script itself should put into a separate package |
| 11 |
> > for this reason. Then PMS just needs to say "install and use this |
| 12 |
> > script" without any further detail. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Strictly speaking, you don't have to have it in the PMS. This can be |
| 15 |
> left purely as Portage extension, much like gnuconfig hacking is right |
| 16 |
> now. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Having different portage versions or different PM behaving differently |
| 19 |
for the same ebuild and portage tree, producing different binaries, |
| 20 |
definitely defeats PMS goals. If such things do not need to be in PMS |
| 21 |
then I don't know why we even have PMS in the first place. |
Archives