On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running > eautoreconf?
Isn't base.eclass considered pretty much dead and to be avoided? It's a throwback to how eclasses were originally going to work, and it doesn't correspond nicely to ebuild default functions. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
