Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of elibtoolize

[James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org>]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:13:50 +0200
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:58:32 +0100
> James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:15:50 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@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