On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 12:50 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 28 August 2005 07:28 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 01:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 03:38 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 15:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 27 August 2005 02:58 pm, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > > > > Which reminds me .. anybody going to scream if I update
> > > > > > elibtoolize() to be able to check if it was already run, and then
> > > > > > bug the portage guys to also add it to econf() ?
> > > > >
> > > > > do what now ?
> > > >
> > > > Make econf handle elibtoolize the same way it does gnuconfig ...
> > >
> > > why ?  this would help us embedded peeps with uclibctoolize, but other
> > > than that ... maybe i just havent really sat down to figure out what
> > > elibtoolize does ...
> >
> > Because it applies the portage/relink/whatever patches to ltmain.sh
> > without the need for real libtoolize and the pains that comes with it
> > and a autoreconf (due to missing macro's, broken build system, etc).
> 
> i guess if we can clean up the output to not complain when none of the 
> patches 
> are needed ...
> 

Yeah, that is the plan.

> > Note ... I really don`t think uclibctoolize and the other stuff that was
> > added is really appropriate in libtool.eclass, as they touch
> > config.guess, etc .. maybe it would have been better to update gnuconfig
> > to try and apply the patch if in uclibc profile?
> 
> uhh, uclibctoolize doesnt touch config.guess ... it only touches 
> ltconfig/configure because libtool does not know about uClibc and thus will 
> often disable shared library support when trying to build on a uClibc host

Urk, my fault .. maybe its the macosx stuff then.  Either way, how about
integrating them rather with the default way elibtoolize() work?  If you
guys are game, I can do it so that the old still will work, and we can
then drop the call to it and elibtoolize once its integrated into
econf().


-- 
Martin Schlemmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to