Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation?
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:09:49
Message-Id: 20130429210936.58a2d9ff@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation? by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:49:17 +0100
2 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:36:41 -0400
5 > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
6 > > On Monday 29 April 2013 01:55:49 Michał Górny wrote:
7 > > > Now, what are your thoughts? Shall we fix PMS to explicitly state
8 > > > the argument order or implement ugly hacks in ebuilds?
9 > >
10 > > portage has always inserted implicit args before the args given by
11 > > the ebuild to econf. PMS omitting the ordering information is simply
12 > > an oversight to be clarified, not functionality that may be relied
13 > > upon.
14 >
15 > As you can see in the bug, we're not discussing anything related to EAPI
16 > 0 behaviour, so this argument is irrelevant. We're discussing a change
17 > in a later EAPI, where the change had nothing to say about ordering.
18
19 There's a difference between 'we' and 'you alone'.
20
21 --
22 Best regards,
23 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation? Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>