On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:24:19 +0200 Alexis Ballier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You said that flameeyes raised this about 10 years ago. It has > > indeed been 10 years! > > > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/caa153de0d23dc264330f5e702f26e58 > > > > The solution he preferred back then was to split elibtoolize into > > its own package and have Portage depend on it. I hadn't considered > > that and I quite like it too. There was only one brief reply to the > > thread back then. Can you think of any downsides now? > > > Well, I don't see any fundamental difference in specing 'call this > utility' vs. proper profile.bashrc. If you don't want specing, then > indeed an utility is the way to go, but this could imply some packages > build with portage because it elibtoolizes them and fail with PMs that > don't. So we mandate it in PMS. > Also, keep in mind that with an external utility you have far less > control on what is executed than with something in $PORTDIR: people > may use an older buggy version of the utility, while when shipping it > in $PORTDIR you are sure that the version is up to date. I was going to say what kent\n said, that Portage itself can just as easily be outdated. He also makes a good point about depending on a minimum version when necessary. This shouldn't be needed often. Ideally Portage would keep pulling in a recent version anyway. I went ahead and converted libtool.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. Well whaddya know, it works. I guess I should continue? -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
pgpxUHDWO5C0G.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
