1 |
Hi, everyone. |
2 |
|
3 |
Quoting the top of libtool.eclass: |
4 |
|
5 |
# @DESCRIPTION: |
6 |
# This eclass patches ltmain.sh distributed with libtoolized packages with the |
7 |
# relink and portage patch among others |
8 |
# |
9 |
# Note, this eclass does not require libtool as it only applies patches to |
10 |
# generated libtool files. We do not run the libtoolize program because that |
11 |
# requires a regeneration of the main autotool files in order to work properly. |
12 |
|
13 |
However, it seems that over time the eclass has grown huge to apply |
14 |
a lot of random patches not only to libtool but also to generated |
15 |
configure scripts etc. |
16 |
|
17 |
It looks like the original intent is that the eclass would be used for |
18 |
all autotools-based builds. It's called directly by some packages, more |
19 |
frequently indirectly called by various eclasses (gnome2, xfconf...) |
20 |
and also at the end of eautoreconf. |
21 |
|
22 |
That said, I don't find the current solution really optimal. A lot of |
23 |
ebuilds (mine, for example) are not using elibtoolize, and I expect |
24 |
that they may randomly fail for some people in corner cases. But I |
25 |
don't feel like adding another eclass to all ebuilds in the tree is |
26 |
a good idea. |
27 |
|
28 |
Portage already does some configure updates in econf. How about we move |
29 |
the whole thing straight into Portage, implicitly activated by econf? |
30 |
That would certainly increase coverage, remove some QA violations from |
31 |
ECLASSDIR and possibly solve the problem long-term. |
32 |
|
33 |
What do you think? |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Best regards, |
37 |
Michał Górny |
38 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |