On pią, 2017-03-17 at 23:38 +0000, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:14:12 +0100 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > Since the bug about libtool.eclass [1] has not received any attention, I > > hereby declare maintainer timeout and start working on improving > > the eclass. > > > > The main goals are to: > > > > a. stop requiring every single autoconf ebuild to call elibtoolize > > manually (and effectively having half-'broken' repository), > > Good! This will help immensely with cross-compiling. > > > 1.1. split the function into new eclass (PATCH already sent), > > The function itself is quite complex. Perhaps this should also go into > a separate package?
Are you talking about epunt_cxx or elibtoolize now? (this point was about epunt_cxx) If the latter, yes, I think it makes sense to split the patching logic into a separate script. > > 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. > Back in September, I tried turning the 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. It worked very well > indeed. I don't recall encountering any issues. Nice, that was exactly my plan. I'll create a git.g.o repo for this in a few days, and commit the patches there. Would you be interested in working on splitting the script again/updating your stand-alone version? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
