| 1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Isn't that just a consequence of how autotools works? Do you have a |
| 3 |
> better alternative? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Maaaybe letting the package manager know how to run autotools if |
| 6 |
necessary? There's already built-in autotools knowledge in that econf |
| 7 |
is in practice autotools-specific. On the other hand, the eclass logic |
| 8 |
isn't trivial, so unless a simplified subset would be adequate for this |
| 9 |
usage it's probably best left as it is. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The point I was trying to get at was that it seems a bit heavyweight to |
| 12 |
rely on a whole eclass for a minor use-case, as well as a bit |
| 13 |
error-prone to expect people to remember it every time, but maybe that's |
| 14 |
the least bad option after all.... |
Archives