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 ... > 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 -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
