| 1 |
On 05/25/2010 01:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 24.5.2010 23.51, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 24.5.2010 1.54, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> ive updated eautomake to run automake in a few more edge cases. hopefully |
| 7 |
>>>>> this doesnt break anything else (seems to not on my system), but who knows. |
| 8 |
>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>> if you see random eautoreconf/eautomake failure, try backing out the |
| 10 |
>>>>> autotools.eclass change first. |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> I think any autotools.eclass behavior changes would benefit from being |
| 13 |
>>>> sent to gentoo-dev for review first. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> if i felt most people had an understanding of how autotools worked let |
| 16 |
>>> alone how autotools.eclass, then perhaps i would |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> And what do you loose by sending them here? The devmanual text strictly |
| 19 |
>> doesn't enforce it but strongly encourages: "Before updating eutils or a |
| 20 |
>> similar widely used eclass, it is best to email the gentoo-dev list." |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> so prove me wrong and post some useful feedback on the change. i'm |
| 23 |
> simply being realistic. |
| 24 |
> sources.gentoo.org/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.97&r2=1.98 |
| 25 |
> -mike |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Even if people don't have useful feedback sending the diff enables them |
| 29 |
to prepare for the upcoming changes and provide support to users if |
| 30 |
something goes wrong. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
PEtteri |
Archives