| 1 |
On pią, 2017-03-17 at 23:38 +0000, James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:14:12 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Hi, everyone. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Since the bug about libtool.eclass [1] has not received any attention, I |
| 8 |
> > hereby declare maintainer timeout and start working on improving |
| 9 |
> > the eclass. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > The main goals are to: |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > a. stop requiring every single autoconf ebuild to call elibtoolize |
| 14 |
> > manually (and effectively having half-'broken' repository), |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Good! This will help immensely with cross-compiling. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > 1.1. split the function into new eclass (PATCH already sent), |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The function itself is quite complex. Perhaps this should also go into |
| 21 |
> a separate package? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Are you talking about epunt_cxx or elibtoolize now? (this point was |
| 24 |
about epunt_cxx) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If the latter, yes, I think it makes sense to split the patching logic |
| 27 |
into a separate script. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> > 3. copy elibtoolize logic to Portage, and make it apply implicitly |
| 30 |
> > on econf [do we need to apply it elsewhere?]; disable explicit |
| 31 |
> > libtoolize when Portage supports that. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Related to the above point, if you make it part of econf then it needs |
| 34 |
> to be part of PMS and that's quite a complex beast to have in the spec. |
| 35 |
> It has been suggested twice on this list (once quite recently) that the |
| 36 |
> script itself should put into a separate package for this reason. Then |
| 37 |
> PMS just needs to say "install and use this script" without any further |
| 38 |
> detail. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Strictly speaking, you don't have to have it in the PMS. This can be |
| 41 |
left purely as Portage extension, much like gnuconfig hacking is right |
| 42 |
now. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> Back in September, I tried turning the eclass into an external script |
| 45 |
> with very few changes to start with, just as a proof of concept. I |
| 46 |
> removed the few references to other eclass helpers but still retained a |
| 47 |
> little dependence on variables exported by Portage. I then stuck a call |
| 48 |
> to this to near the top of econf() and tried out some packages, |
| 49 |
> including those that had failed on me before. It worked very well |
| 50 |
> indeed. I don't recall encountering any issues. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Nice, that was exactly my plan. I'll create a git.g.o repo for this |
| 53 |
in a few days, and commit the patches there. Would you be interested |
| 54 |
in working on splitting the script again/updating your stand-alone |
| 55 |
version? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Best regards, |
| 59 |
Michał Górny |
Archives