Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: "vivo75@×××××.com" <vivo75@×××××.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:25:33
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation? by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
2 <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3 > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:42:22 +0200
4 > "vivo75@×××××.com" <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote:
5 >> Now, is it possible to alter the behaviour of paludis to act, still
6 >> following the specs, in a way compatible with portage and which seem
7 >> more logical to the majority of people writing this thread?
8 >
9 > Sure, and as an added bonus, we can do that selectively from EAPI 6
10 > onwards, avoiding the need to introduce a breaking change to the spec.
12 There is little value in going back and forth on this. Portage
13 already implements the desired logic, and I suspect that is unlikely
14 to change. Anybody who uses paludis can always use portage when they
15 run into something that doesn't compile the way they want it to, and
16 as far as I can tell Portage implements PMS just fine anyway (the spec
17 does not explicitly specify that build system options must override
18 econf options, and I doubt that the Council would accept a retroactive
19 change to codify the broken behavior in EAPI 5).
21 The only people who really suffer are those who wish to use Paludis,
22 and they're welcome to fork it, wait until the whole tree migrates to
23 EAPI 6, use portage on occasion, or offer up their suffering to the
24 souls in Exherbo. ;)
26 Rich