From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-59929-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E021381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:24:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BDFD7E09D6;
Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:23:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vb0-f48.google.com (mail-vb0-f48.google.com [209.85.212.48])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB00E0920
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:23:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id p12so1332896vbe.7
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=+HEyaw8GpLkhtQ1Pcq3l5OgdO4iMT7QaEh93YJitWKk=;
b=W7ZWvM7YEpYxJidIgjsauoGDj/4/OGay+jK0lMC2PR0amTIlPb8kovzUtyIt2gmlap
Hui9SwyGMiy/mSCrl0MC962Eur0V/Ltx1Y0ctiyod3FfigObyX9xKyXXVVHn0XG7744l
rAXIk+3ALtTvqI0jHSZNnVqyfMi/F5H89h2W/0+I4aZqIprbpAShhhIyqJsAn14i7l2c
7pnlCWSCXkr1/HbyTg/LVspQQbY88LvKT9vvvDzahQ/BHVlruC3DbKBA7+utXmKT/KlP
a2fqGSSO0VJDfiYyGFFeIQcgbfP1mTFxifloZ8B/5gQtHZ2vwUSmBc27VRZl0Cr034uU
bR6g==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.46.197 with SMTP id k5mr34132929vcf.40.1367267031780;
Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.168.4 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201304291528.56370.vapier@gentoo.org>
References: <20130429075549.06e8ad66@gentoo.org>
<20130429210936.58a2d9ff@gentoo.org>
<20130429201740.4dcb76d4@googlemail.com>
<201304291528.56370.vapier@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:23:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wSOeAlvDO-7Ifx-z_-phpB4EATM
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_nn_Q67_sTh0kdncEkjcM2suVLV_1jYrRqTE4badY9wJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall econf append its arguments to end of
./configure invocation?
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 98ea7421-8a6e-4186-b034-852273c4334c
X-Archives-Hash: b752686aa3d73badc1f54afb31d25582
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> claiming breakage is a red herring. i'll wager that clarifying PMS to match
> realistic intentions and the largest PM won't break a single package.
> appending args over the econf args is asinine.
If many packages actually break with the change I'm sure everybody
will see the sense in making the change in a new EAPI. However, from
the sound of things all these packages would already be broken with
portage, and I'm sure those would have been flagged by the
tinderbox/users/etc by now if that were the case.
Having econf options override build system options "just makes sense."
If that wasn't documented, well, let's document it. However, this
isn't some DoD project with a 35k page requirement specification -
there are going to be elements of PMS behavior that simply aren't
defined. Lack of specification causing inconsistent solutions is
understandable, but if there is a "common sense" solution we really
should embrace it.
Rich