From: James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of elibtoolize
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:58:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160927215812.4b6f2580@symphony.aura-online.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160927112419.231c18ae@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1941 bytes --]
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:24:19 +0200
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > You said that flameeyes raised this about 10 years ago. It has
> > indeed been 10 years!
> >
> > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/caa153de0d23dc264330f5e702f26e58
> >
> > The solution he preferred back then was to split elibtoolize into
> > its own package and have Portage depend on it. I hadn't considered
> > that and I quite like it too. There was only one brief reply to the
> > thread back then. Can you think of any downsides now?
>
>
> Well, I don't see any fundamental difference in specing 'call this
> utility' vs. proper profile.bashrc. If you don't want specing, then
> indeed an utility is the way to go, but this could imply some packages
> build with portage because it elibtoolizes them and fail with PMs that
> don't.
So we mandate it in PMS.
> Also, keep in mind that with an external utility you have far less
> control on what is executed than with something in $PORTDIR: people
> may use an older buggy version of the utility, while when shipping it
> in $PORTDIR you are sure that the version is up to date.
I was going to say what kent\n said, that Portage itself can just as
easily be outdated. He also makes a good point about depending on a
minimum version when necessary. This shouldn't be needed often. Ideally
Portage would keep pulling in a recent version anyway.
I went ahead and converted libtool.eclass into an external script with
very few changes to start with, just as a proof of concept. I removed
the few references to other eclass helpers but still retained a little
dependence on variables exported by Portage. I then stuck a call to
this to near the top of econf() and tried out some packages, including
those that had failed on me before. Well whaddya know, it works. I
guess I should continue?
--
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-27 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-25 10:05 [gentoo-dev] The future of elibtoolize James Le Cuirot
2016-09-26 15:53 ` Alexis Ballier
2016-09-26 20:35 ` James Le Cuirot
2016-09-27 9:24 ` Alexis Ballier
2016-09-27 9:52 ` Kent Fredric
2016-09-27 10:28 ` Alexis Ballier
2016-09-27 20:58 ` James Le Cuirot [this message]
2016-10-02 15:51 ` Dan Douglas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-09-20 7:15 Michał Górny
2016-09-20 12:58 ` James Le Cuirot
2016-09-20 15:13 ` Alexis Ballier
2016-09-20 15:21 ` James Le Cuirot
2016-09-20 15:31 ` Alexis Ballier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160927215812.4b6f2580@symphony.aura-online.co.uk \
--to=chewi@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox