On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:13:50 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:58:32 +0100 > James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:15:50 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > That said, I don't find the current solution really optimal. A lot > > > of ebuilds (mine, for example) are not using elibtoolize, and I > > > expect that they may randomly fail for some people in corner > > > cases. But I don't feel like adding another eclass to all ebuilds > > > in the tree is a good idea. > > > > > > Portage already does some configure updates in econf. How about we > > > move the whole thing straight into Portage, implicitly activated > > > by econf? That would certainly increase coverage, remove some QA > > > violations from ECLASSDIR and possibly solve the problem > > > long-term. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > I support this. I don't know if it's as big a problem as it was > > when I last looked at it but cross-compiling often failed without > > the sysroot patch. Much like you, before becoming a dev, I did not > > want to file a whole string of bug reports requesting that > > elibtoolize be added to loads of ebuilds. > > > > > there is a simple solution to this: profile.bashrc :) Indeed, I did some godawful things with bashrc that make my own eyes bleed but I stopped short of adding elibtoolize. It might work but if it would work that reliably, why not make it standard? -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
