| 1 |
On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Which reminds me .. anybody going to scream if I update elibtoolize() |
| 6 |
> > > > to be able to check if it was already run, and then bug the portage |
| 7 |
> > > > guys to also add it to econf() ? |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > do what now ? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Make econf handle elibtoolize the same way it does gnuconfig ... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> why ? this would help us embedded peeps with uclibctoolize, but other than |
| 14 |
> that ... maybe i just havent really sat down to figure out what elibtoolize |
| 15 |
> does ... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Because it applies the portage/relink/whatever patches to ltmain.sh |
| 18 |
without the need for real libtoolize and the pains that comes with it |
| 19 |
and a autoreconf (due to missing macro's, broken build system, etc). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Note ... I really don`t think uclibctoolize and the other stuff that was |
| 22 |
added is really appropriate in libtool.eclass, as they touch |
| 23 |
config.guess, etc .. maybe it would have been better to update gnuconfig |
| 24 |
to try and apply the patch if in uclibc profile? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Martin Schlemmer |
Archives