| 1 |
On 10-01-2021 14:34:13 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> The vast majority of libtool-based programs use configure script to |
| 3 |
> generate libtool. However, a few non-autoconf packages also use libtool |
| 4 |
> by calling system-installed /usr/bin/libtool. The problem is that this |
| 5 |
> libtool hardcodes the values of CC/CXX at its' build time, so unless it |
| 6 |
> is rebuilt frequently, packages end up using the stale values. |
| 7 |
> The problem is known since 2005 [1] and hasn't been resolved yet. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I can think of two ways of solving it: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> 1. We could patch system-installed libtool to respect environment |
| 12 |
> variables such as CC, CXX, etc. This will probably require carrying |
| 13 |
> a (possibly non-trivial) patch forever. On the bright side, libtool is |
| 14 |
> not exactly a package seeing frequent releases. I mean, the current |
| 15 |
> version is from 2015. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 2. We could regenerate libtool and force local instance of libtool |
| 18 |
> in the packages needing it. The main advantage of this is that it's |
| 19 |
> a no-brainer. I could make a quick eclass that does configure a local |
| 20 |
> instance and prepends it into PATH. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> WDYT? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I would prefer option 2, also because on some systems usr/bin/libtool is |
| 25 |
some entirely different tool than GNU libtool. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I remember this being much more of a problem ~15 years ago, so I wonder |
| 28 |
do we have an easy way of crafting a list of affected packages, such |
| 29 |
that we can see how big the problem actually is nowadays? I'm thinking |
| 30 |
perhaps tinderbox logs or something can reveal /usr/bin/libtool usage |
| 31 |
somehow. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Fabian |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/88596 |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 41 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives