From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E9RQB-0005WU-Oe for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:58:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7SHtORw006380; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:55:24 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7SHqfeu015918 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:52:41 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E9RMQ-00075o-W7 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:54:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 5043 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2005 13:50:08 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2005 13:50:08 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] autotools support eclass Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:54:34 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200508271400.26088@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <200508281250.40193.vapier@gentoo.org> <1125250997.17299.3.camel@lycan.lan> In-Reply-To: <1125250997.17299.3.camel@lycan.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508281354.34127.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 2e5cf2b3-2a90-4ec8-b694-cc12d05a73f8 X-Archives-Hash: 1443bfcf17dc4f476afb72f62b5f7bae On Sunday 28 August 2005 01:43 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 12:50 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday 28 August 2005 07:28 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > > > > > > Which reminds me .. anybody going to scream if I update > > > > > > > elibtoolize() to be able to check if it was already run, and > > > > > > > then bug the portage guys to also add it to econf() ? > > > > > > > > > > > > do what now ? > > > > > > > > > > Make econf handle elibtoolize the same way it does gnuconfig ... > > > > > > > > why ? this would help us embedded peeps with uclibctoolize, but > > > > other than that ... maybe i just havent really sat down to figure out > > > > what elibtoolize does ... > > > > > > Note ... I really don`t think uclibctoolize and the other stuff that > > > was added is really appropriate in libtool.eclass, as they touch > > > config.guess, etc .. maybe it would have been better to update > > > gnuconfig to try and apply the patch if in uclibc profile? > > > > uhh, uclibctoolize doesnt touch config.guess ... it only touches > > ltconfig/configure because libtool does not know about uClibc and thus > > will often disable shared library support when trying to build on a > > uClibc host > > Urk, my fault .. maybe its the macosx stuff then. i make no claims as to the sanity of the OS X libtoolize as i had nothing to do with it :) > Either way, how about > integrating them rather with the default way elibtoolize() work? If you > guys are game, I can do it so that the old still will work, and we can > then drop the call to it and elibtoolize once its integrated into > econf(). if you mean dropping uclibctoolize and integrating all of that stuff into the elibtoolize logic, then sure, feel free ... as long as we keep the patches sep though ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list