Dnia 2013-12-11, o godz. 17:20:08 Greg Turner <g...@malth.us> napisał(a):
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 12/11/2013 10:18 PM, Greg Turner wrote: > >> > > > > this needs more explanation. Why do we want this? > > Sometimes the automagic header stuff is working against the ebuild > author, or at least threatens to, in the future. If you can't solve a problem, ask someone else. Working around it is almost never a good solution. > The most plausible etiology would be: ABI "X" is going to generate > header_x.h but ABI "Y" is going to generate header_y.h, or no header > at all. An argument could certainly be made this this calls for > either (a) a way to exempt a particular header from the header > automagic -- not all of them or (b) a general exemption from > ebuild-crashing, for headers that are present for a certain ABI but > not in other ABI's. The only reason I didn't implement either of > those (both of which are probably preferable to mine) is that it > seemed nontrivial, and I'm lazy. Then you need to wrap all the possible headers. The function works well if you specify headers that are only available in some of the ABIs. > Regardless, if our standard advice is "try not to use this automagic > header wrapping feature, it can break autoconf assumptions" (IIRC, it > is -- but if it isn't, it probably should be), then we ought to > provide /some/ convenient means to get around it, other than sneaking > those headers in through some kind of inter-abi back-door, in order to > fake out the automagic (which is, effectively, what we require right > now). The advice tells to do things properly, not to choose even worse solution. If wrapping breaks something, random header install is going to screw up even worse. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
