| 1 |
On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty a écrit : |
| 3 |
>> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running |
| 4 |
>> eautoreconf? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually apply |
| 7 |
> patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run eautoreconf on its |
| 8 |
> own. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
+1 |
| 11 |
If you need to run eautoreconf without adding patches, it may be worth |
| 12 |
adding a comment explaining why. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> In the end, that won't help us at all (which is no reason not to have this |
| 15 |
> :) ) but I'm afraid that adding options for semi-hidden stuff can come and |
| 16 |
> bite us later, as we add more and more of those. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think it should not be added as it hides something quite important. |
| 19 |
- it takes a lot of time on most platforms I run |
| 20 |
- it may break (especially during bootstrapping, eautoreconfs are hell) |
| 21 |
- it may introduce extra deps/caution (e.g. gettext macros being available) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So I'd prefer to keep it quite clear that this is happening, instead of |
| 24 |
hiding it somewhere in an obscure corner of the ebuild. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 29 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives