Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Greg Turner <gmt@×××××.us>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] musings on config.{sub,guess} replacement living in econf (was: [PATCH] econf: update configure/config.{sub,guess} atomically to avoid races)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:20:36
1 On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
2 > URL:
4 Perhaps, with this bug resolved, this matter falls under the "more
5 trouble than its worth to fix" category -- but...
7 My hunch is that the decision to put the config.{sub,guess}
8 replacement code in econf was intended as a quick-and-dirty way to
9 avoid doing the replacements, in cases where no configure script runs
10 in an ebuild.
12 Post EAPI-2, the convention that hacking on the sources in "${S}" is
13 a "no-no" after src_prepare has clearly crystallized considerably (I'm
14 guessing the code has EAPI-[01] origins); violating that convention in
15 econf seems awkward.
17 Further, the approach has a few other non-fantastic qualities:
19 o It doesn't run, if, for some reason, the ebuild must invoke
20 configure directly rather than use econf
22 o when econf is invoked repeatedly, it does the same
23 O(# of dirs in ${S}) noop over and over
25 In short... moving the config.{sub,guess} replacement code (but
26 probably not the shebang patching for reasons of expedience) to some
27 post-src_prepare place would probably be more elegant and pretty easy
28 to do.
30 As for the "only replace if we econf" issue, I can't imagine that
31 simply doing the replacement unconditionally would be so bad (perhaps,
32 with a hard-coded gnuconfig exemption, if that's needed).
34 Anyhow, it's very much not a big deal. #487478 (which was entirely
35 theoretical, to begin with) is fixed, and there are way bigger fish to
36 fry in Gentoo-land... just thought I'd mention it, though, mostly as
37 an open note-to-self, I guess.
39 -gmt