| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:13:50 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:58:32 +0100 |
| 5 |
> James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:15:50 +0200 |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > That said, I don't find the current solution really optimal. A lot |
| 11 |
> > > of ebuilds (mine, for example) are not using elibtoolize, and I |
| 12 |
> > > expect that they may randomly fail for some people in corner |
| 13 |
> > > cases. But I don't feel like adding another eclass to all ebuilds |
| 14 |
> > > in the tree is a good idea. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > Portage already does some configure updates in econf. How about we |
| 17 |
> > > move the whole thing straight into Portage, implicitly activated |
| 18 |
> > > by econf? That would certainly increase coverage, remove some QA |
| 19 |
> > > violations from ECLASSDIR and possibly solve the problem |
| 20 |
> > > long-term. |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > What do you think? |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > I support this. I don't know if it's as big a problem as it was |
| 25 |
> > when I last looked at it but cross-compiling often failed without |
| 26 |
> > the sysroot patch. Much like you, before becoming a dev, I did not |
| 27 |
> > want to file a whole string of bug reports requesting that |
| 28 |
> > elibtoolize be added to loads of ebuilds. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> there is a simple solution to this: profile.bashrc :) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Indeed, I did some godawful things with bashrc that make my own eyes |
| 35 |
bleed but I stopped short of adding elibtoolize. It might work but if |
| 36 |
it would work that reliably, why not make it standard? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 40 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives