From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JPDmG-0002vR-5j for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:19:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63DC5E048A; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bacchus.cwi.nl (bacchus.cwi.nl [192.16.191.9]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203AEE048A for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (pegasus.ins.cwi.nl [192.16.196.142]) by bacchus.cwi.nl (8.13.6/8.12.3) with ESMTP id m1D9Jbp5020160 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:19:37 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:19:37 +0100 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass Message-ID: <20080213091937.GA6925@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <47B22F56.905@gentoo.org> <47B2A13B.2090406@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47B2A13B.2090406@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.1) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5ebb412e-952a-41af-8818-6d67eca5c6fb X-Archives-Hash: 4a2b9ea4ef075c5845eedf99dba21bec On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, R=C3=A9mi Cardona wrote: > Petteri R=C3=A4ty a =C3=A9crit : >> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running=20 >> eautoreconf? > In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually app= ly=20 > patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run eautoreconf on= its=20 > own. +1 If you need to run eautoreconf without adding patches, it may be worth adding a comment explaining why. > In the end, that won't help us at all (which is no reason not to have t= his=20 > :) ) but I'm afraid that adding options for semi-hidden stuff can come = and=20 > bite us later, as we add more and more of those. I think it should not be added as it hides something quite important. - it takes a lot of time on most platforms I run - it may break (especially during bootstrapping, eautoreconfs are hell) - it may introduce extra deps/caution (e.g. gettext macros being availabl= e) So I'd prefer to keep it quite clear that this is happening, instead of hiding it somewhere in an obscure corner of the ebuild. --=20 Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level --=20 gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list