[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Master plan for fixing elibtoolize
From:       Alexis Ballier <aballier () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2017-03-22 9:38:01
Message-ID: 20170322103801.116a5884 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 19:29:36 +0000
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:

> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > If elibtoolize results in different binaries being produced, then
> > > it's done wrong in the first place. AFAIU the primary goal of
> > > elibtoolize logic is to fix issues on recent systems with
> > > outdated build systems. Which is certainly not something that
> > > needs to be done for every user out there.  
> > 
> > You probably didn't have a look at what the patches fix. Having a
> > quick look at patches there,  
> 
> Where are those patches you mention?

Those in ELT-patches...

> > I could fine one fixing relink to old libs (from / instead of $D),  
> 
> I have an open bug for this for a package, both in Gentoo and
> upstream. It seems to be a problem with libtool itself, is that
> about right?

With recent libtools it is most likely to be the package's fault, like
wrong/poor usage of autotools.


> > another one fixing parallel install. The former produces broken
> > binaries, the latter none at all.
> > 
> > I seriously doubt this shouldn't be fixed for every user.  
> 
> What "this" do you refer to? Sorry for the confusion, I want to
> understand.


the bugs

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]