On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:58:32 +0100
James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:15:50 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > That said, I don't find the current solution really optimal. A lot
> > of ebuilds (mine, for example) are not using elibtoolize, and I
> > expect that they may randomly fail for some people in corner cases.
> > But I don't feel like adding another eclass to all ebuilds in the
> > tree is a good idea.
> > 
> > Portage already does some configure updates in econf. How about we
> > move the whole thing straight into Portage, implicitly activated by
> > econf? That would certainly increase coverage, remove some QA
> > violations from ECLASSDIR and possibly solve the problem long-term.
> > 
> > What do you think?  
> I support this. I don't know if it's as big a problem as it was when I
> last looked at it but cross-compiling often failed without the sysroot
> patch. Much like you, before becoming a dev, I did not want to file a
> whole string of bug reports requesting that elibtoolize be added to
> loads of ebuilds.

there is a simple solution to this: profile.bashrc :)

i think there was a project/idea to do this in a cleaner way, supported
by diego, like 10 years ago, but i cant remember more

Reply via email to