| 1 |
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:14:12 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hi, everyone. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Since the bug about libtool.eclass [1] has not received any attention, I |
| 7 |
> hereby declare maintainer timeout and start working on improving |
| 8 |
> the eclass. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The main goals are to: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> a. stop requiring every single autoconf ebuild to call elibtoolize |
| 13 |
> manually (and effectively having half-'broken' repository), |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Good! This will help immensely with cross-compiling. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> 1.1. split the function into new eclass (PATCH already sent), |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The function itself is quite complex. Perhaps this should also go into |
| 20 |
a separate package? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> 3. copy elibtoolize logic to Portage, and make it apply implicitly |
| 23 |
> on econf [do we need to apply it elsewhere?]; disable explicit |
| 24 |
> libtoolize when Portage supports that. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Related to the above point, if you make it part of econf then it needs |
| 27 |
to be part of PMS and that's quite a complex beast to have in the spec. |
| 28 |
It has been suggested twice on this list (once quite recently) that the |
| 29 |
script itself should put into a separate package for this reason. Then |
| 30 |
PMS just needs to say "install and use this script" without any further |
| 31 |
detail. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Back in September, I tried turning the eclass into an external script |
| 34 |
with very few changes to start with, just as a proof of concept. I |
| 35 |
removed the few references to other eclass helpers but still retained a |
| 36 |
little dependence on variables exported by Portage. I then stuck a call |
| 37 |
to this to near the top of econf() and tried out some packages, |
| 38 |
including those that had failed on me before. It worked very well |
| 39 |
indeed. I don't recall encountering any issues. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 43 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives