| 1 |
Hi, everyone. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Quoting the top of libtool.eclass: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
# @DESCRIPTION: |
| 6 |
# This eclass patches ltmain.sh distributed with libtoolized packages with the |
| 7 |
# relink and portage patch among others |
| 8 |
# |
| 9 |
# Note, this eclass does not require libtool as it only applies patches to |
| 10 |
# generated libtool files. We do not run the libtoolize program because that |
| 11 |
# requires a regeneration of the main autotool files in order to work properly. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
However, it seems that over time the eclass has grown huge to apply |
| 14 |
a lot of random patches not only to libtool but also to generated |
| 15 |
configure scripts etc. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It looks like the original intent is that the eclass would be used for |
| 18 |
all autotools-based builds. It's called directly by some packages, more |
| 19 |
frequently indirectly called by various eclasses (gnome2, xfconf...) |
| 20 |
and also at the end of eautoreconf. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That said, I don't find the current solution really optimal. A lot of |
| 23 |
ebuilds (mine, for example) are not using elibtoolize, and I expect |
| 24 |
that they may randomly fail for some people in corner cases. But I |
| 25 |
don't feel like adding another eclass to all ebuilds in the tree is |
| 26 |
a good idea. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Portage already does some configure updates in econf. How about we move |
| 29 |
the whole thing straight into Portage, implicitly activated by econf? |
| 30 |
That would certainly increase coverage, remove some QA violations from |
| 31 |
ECLASSDIR and possibly solve the problem long-term. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
What do you think? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
| 38 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives