From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8608E1381F3 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:09:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C8589E09E3; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D74BDE09D0 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (77-255-24-177.adsl.inetia.pl [77.255.24.177]) (using SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5FAA33DF78; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:09:36 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-2?B?TWljaGGzIEfzcm55?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of ./configure invocation? Message-ID: <20130429210936.58a2d9ff@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20130429194917.46d4985c@googlemail.com> References: <20130429075549.06e8ad66@gentoo.org> <201304291436.42577.vapier@gentoo.org> <20130429194917.46d4985c@googlemail.com> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA512; boundary="Sig_/29zOLPJPEqbQLQT.2SFTWCG"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 80ed3154-66b8-4d18-8727-d8d55e10d479 X-Archives-Hash: 3d6de067c42179096fd6a276aa0c9770 --Sig_/29zOLPJPEqbQLQT.2SFTWCG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:49:17 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:36:41 -0400 > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 29 April 2013 01:55:49 Micha=B3 G=F3rny wrote: > > > Now, what are your thoughts? Shall we fix PMS to explicitly state > > > the argument order or implement ugly hacks in ebuilds? > >=20 > > portage has always inserted implicit args before the args given by > > the ebuild to econf. PMS omitting the ordering information is simply > > an oversight to be clarified, not functionality that may be relied > > upon. >=20 > As you can see in the bug, we're not discussing anything related to EAPI > 0 behaviour, so this argument is irrelevant. We're discussing a change > in a later EAPI, where the change had nothing to say about ordering. There's a difference between 'we' and 'you alone'. --=20 Best regards, Micha=B3 G=F3rny --Sig_/29zOLPJPEqbQLQT.2SFTWCG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJRfsVzXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ1RUJGMjBGOTk2RkIzQzIyQ0M2RkNBNDBC QUJGMUQ1RkY4QzgxMTBBAAoJELq/HV/4yBEKg+sP/A3kT66yO9lrcmCIw+bRTm2S u1HemHU/+vF9Cc+eFrgGxDiDCaFuIm059annCXY6FiHQLp2s+tOBpPPK9mQOI1yD hUAHt2+CZNsF0zKdmvP15QlRhdi2NTnevzvdDa7S9dx1X8bMBttdPgpgMER+KQwf z+cUY5zhlybYWsAMBpIgyvm9D6LqF2ry/DJsMmFY4+MjDmtV6roPPxfrY7rr4b6l JZyJHXdNU2m2zaqsiyhu7HOcHpAnut9F1tS673WBXws8ibOAk2KclfUxf54NANjU ZBIboMHGBW06LdGFQ30HxQqsfwc0CtCkahArR1EWEoPBCe9OkZFcxyMSl+tw6fjd JgEN+voM9hT1f9YgMQURZrWFlMX1YySXQo/VI9ZEZz3jmGIeOgCkjo49H2HC2JDj 036F8Ta3n+SUiyYs8fHsm714lFmBjVUE+ZgIe5BdA51JiguCzbNqlyvbdUiK9Rtn tcNfWoTro6csFvKEsTWaO4biEA7CYDWb3HKbhP06+n8V+JBKjgHQLhLeX/KtMCuZ 7aTP7q4yO5bvaU7SJHZa7apWMmn/5CXJfNkmJWW5HZ1qKMqRM425//o6ScsGtPD8 1shhUNupPFgKWI/rFpowv7zX2lDEc0AQKJM19MmTlgiwkP9WRPV2zpqB0vnXRh+b cdl6zVEpYB82PO4yUMxT =lGuZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/29zOLPJPEqbQLQT.2SFTWCG--