Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Master plan for fixing elibtoolize

[Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:53:31 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 3. copy elibtoolize logic to Portage, and make it apply implicitly
> > > on econf [do we need to apply it elsewhere?]; disable explicit
> > > libtoolize when Portage supports that.  
> > 
> > Related to the above point, if you make it part of econf then it
> > needs to be part of PMS and that's quite a complex beast to have in
> > the spec. It has been suggested twice on this list (once quite
> > recently) that the script itself should put into a separate package
> > for this reason. Then PMS just needs to say "install and use this
> > script" without any further detail.  
> 
> Strictly speaking, you don't have to have it in the PMS. This can be
> left purely as Portage extension, much like gnuconfig hacking is right
> now.

Having different portage versions or different PM behaving differently
for the same ebuild and portage tree, producing different binaries,
definitely defeats PMS goals. If such things do not need to be in PMS
then I don't know why we even have PMS in the first place.