| 1 |
Dnia 2014-01-16, o godz. 17:29:43 |
| 2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/16/2014 04:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Because AC_PATH_TOOL uses CHOST and some random Gentoo invention. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I got that AC_PATH_TOOL and AC_CHECK_TOOL prefix whatever utility they |
| 8 |
> search for with the canonicalized chost (usually from config.guess), but |
| 9 |
> I still don't see why we need this to avoid hackery? Can you give me a |
| 10 |
> practial example because right now I just don't see a serious problem. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
libgpg-error installs ${CHOST}-gpg-error-config. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Now libgcrypt (and possibly other tools) are using AC_PATH_TOOL to find |
| 15 |
it. If we have proper CHOSTs, they find the right gpg-error-config |
| 16 |
and we don't have to put any more effort into that. Then libgcrypt |
| 17 |
installs ${CHOST}-libgcrypt-config. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Now other tools are using AC_PATH_TOOL to find proper libgcrypt-config. |
| 20 |
If we have proper CHOSTs, it just works and we don't have to put any |
| 21 |
more effort into that. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Same goes for LLVM & Mesa. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If we play by the rules nicely, all pieces fit together nicely and we |
| 26 |
don't have to worry. If we don't, we ask the developers to spit Gentoo- |
| 27 |
specific hackery all over the place. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Michał Górny |
Archives